Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

ATTENDANCE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have to report that Her Majesty, having been waited upon, pursuant to the Order of 25 April, humbly to know Her Majesty's Pleasure when she will be attended by this House, has been pleased to appoint to be attended on Friday 5 May at Twelve noon in Westminster Hall.

NEW WRIT

For the county constituency of Perth and Kinross, in the room of the hon. Sir Nicholas Hardwick Fairbairn, QC, deceased.—[Mr. Wood.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Departmental Expenditure

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent in each standard planning region in the last year for which figures are available. [20076]

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): Data on Ministry of Defence equipment expenditure with companies in each of the standard economic planning regions of the United Kingdom are contained in "UK Defence Statistics 1994", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. We do not compile regional figures for other aspects of defence expenditure.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not about time that the Ministry of Defence did so, because its spending figures highly in any debate on public expenditure in the United Kingdom? From information that is available, it is clear that nations such as Wales are very badly disadvantaged in public expenditure by the Department. Will he undertake a review to ensure that there is a better share of that spending throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Freeman: The Government believe that that is precisely the wrong way to allocate scarce defence resources. It must be done on the basis of value for money, and that means placing contracts with United Kingdom companies—which win 90 per cent. of all

competitions for our procurement—where it represents best value for money for the taxpayer, and not on the basis of some political fix.

Mr. Devlin: Would it not be best, from the points of view of value for money and the happiness of the troops and contractors who serve the Ministry of Defence, if more of them were moved out of the south-east of England and up to the north-east of England and Scotland, where the best recruiting areas are?

Mr. Freeman: There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. He will know—indeed, the whole House will know—that we have moved out of the Ministry of Defence in London, to different locations around the country, the command headquarters for many aspects of service for the armed forces. That is good for employment and for representation around the country.

Mr. Martlew: I am sure that the Minister will agree that all areas of the country have suffered because of a reduction in defence expenditure, but does he further agree that the areas that have had Ministry of Defence bases have suffered more than most? Is it not a fact that local authorities in those areas are suffering because the MOD cannot respond quickly enough to ensure that the land is put back into efficient use for the community? Will he confirm that the only criterion being used by the MOD for the sale of land is that it should go to those who pay the highest price? Is that not what happened to RAF Bentwaters, where the base was sold to the Maharishi Foundation because it paid the highest fee, despite the fact that the local authority and community were against it?

Mr. Freeman: We believe that faster progress could be made on the disposal of Ministry of Defence land. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have given commitments to a number of local authorities that we will move faster and begin the process of disposal and co-operation with the local authority as soon as we know when a change has to be made. I think that local authorities will appreciate that. It is not always the case that the sale is made to the highest bidder. If the hon. Gentleman has anything to suggest that the Bentwaters sale was to the disadvantage of the taxpayer, the House would be interested to learn about it. As a general rule, the highest price should prevail, but not in every circumstance.

Mr. Salmond: As a point of fact in answer to the main question, will the Minister confirm that per capita spending on defence procurement in the north of England and in the nations of Scotland and Wales is far lower than expenditure in the south of England? Is the Minister aware that that single aspect of policy has far greater impact than the Government's total remaining regional policy?

Mr. Freeman: The job of the Ministry of Defence and of the armed forces is not only to defend the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom but to fulfil our other defence commitments. We must deploy our forces—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force—where that best suits our strategic interests. The Labour party's view on defence procurement is that it would wish to have a defence review within the first six months of any Parliament in which it happened to form a majority. That would be bad for defence expenditure because there would be confusion and, inevitably, the Labour party would reduce defence expenditure.

Bosnia

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces in Bosnia. [20077]

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British troops in former Yugoslavia. [20083]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We remain concerned at the escalation in the level of fighting and call on all sides to show restraint, to co-operate fully with UNPROFOR and to participate in the search for a lasting political solution. British forces will remain in Bosnia for as long as UNPROFOR can continue to carry out its mandate at an acceptable level of risk.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will be more than aware of the great pride felt by the House and the country in the humanitarian work of our forces in Bosnia. In light of the deteriorating situation, what does he think will be the point at which their humanitarian contribution will no longer be possible and the requirement for the safety of our service men will be such that we should withdraw them?

Mr. Rifkind: The contribution by British and other UNPROFOR forces has been humanitarian, but they have served to prevent an extension of the conflict outside Bosnia and Croatia to Macedonia, Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans which could have even more terrifying consequences. We shall continue to judge the British presence in Bosnia on the basis of whether the forces can carry out the mandate without unacceptable risk to their safety. One can never entirely avoid risk in a war zone, but they must be there on the basis that they are contributors to the United Nations mandate and not taking part in the war.

Mr. Winnick: What military action will be taken to ensure that the designated United Nations safe areas in Bosnia are safe from Serbian aggression? Is it not the case that, time and again, Serbian commanders have teased and threatened UN forces in Bosnia because they do not fear any sharp military response? That is basically the reason why Serbian aggression continues in Bosnia.

Mr. Rifkind: The proper response must be determined by the UN commanders on the ground, who must take into account both the need to demonstrate to the Serbs or whomsoever may threaten the safe areas the unacceptability of such behaviour and the paramount obligation to ensure the safety of their own forces. Only on the basis of both those criteria being met is it appropriate to contemplate the sort of action at which I think that the hon. Gentleman was hinting.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have a responsibility to not only the troops in Bosnia but the aid convoys which are organised by the Crown Agents from Sutton in my constituency? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the aid convoy drivers would be determined to continue their vital work regardless of whether they have the escorts?

Mr. Rifkind: I pay unqualified tribute to not only the UN forces but the civilians who, without exception, are exceptionally brave individuals, and who have carried out

important tasks that have saved many lives. Clearly, it is for them as individuals to decide their continuing presence in Bosnia, but it is part of UNPROFOR's task to give them the protection to which they are entitled.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the question of whether British forces can continue to fulfil their responsibilities without undue risk in former Yugoslavia will be one for the commanders on the ground? Does he further agree that any withdrawal will be so complicated and hazardous that it is inconceivable that UK forces will be withdrawn unilaterally?

Mr. Rifkind: The question of the continuing presence of UN forces must ultimately be a matter for the UN Security Council and for national Governments. Important political questions are involved and we cannot avoid the responsibility in that sphere, but the recommendation on any specific military action should be based on the professional advice of UN commanders on the ground. On the final part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I do not envisage any unilateral action by the UK to withdraw from Bosnia. It is important that the UN should act as a single entity with regard to that matter.

Dr. David Clark: The House has repeatedly acknowledged the bravery and professionalism of British troops in Bosnia and it acknowledges the increasing dangers as the ceasefire is broken, but does the Secretary of State agree that having confidence in a plan to withdraw troops is the essential prerequisite to having the confidence to keep troops there? Will he assure the House that NATO has a well devised plan to extract troops if that proves necessary?

Mr. Rifkind: We have always recognised that it is possible that the UN force might have to be withdrawn, and NATO has already agreed to provide the cover that would be necessary in such a situation. It is an important part of any NATO plan that the Government of the United States of America have said that their forces would be available on the ground, along with other NATO forces, to help supervise such a plan. On that basis, one can say with confidence that there would be single command and control of any such arrangement, which would give the degree of confidence that is necessary to ensure its success, if withdrawal should prove necessary. I repeat that we hope that such a withdrawal would not be necessary, but that it is vital to have such a plan available in case it is required.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that all the evidence is that warring factions seem to be determined to escalate the war, and that, as he has said, our first duty and responsibility is to ensure that the UN force can carry out its assigned task? It was never realistic to expect the UN force to be an invasion force or a force to prevent war. A withdrawal could and probably will be dangerous. It must be properly planned for and managed, which will not be easy. Those who were calling for UN intervention should remember that when we have to withdraw.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes a number of valid points. At this moment, the main concern is inevitably with the Croatian offensive against the Krajina Serbs, and with certain reports that we have received that fixed-wing aircraft may have been used by Bosnian Serbs against the


Bihac enclave. It is important that those incidents should cease forthwith if the overall position is not to deteriorate in a dangerous way.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals to put existing British nuclear weapons into disarmament negotiations have been made at the United Nations conference on the non-proliferation treaty in New York. [20078]

Mr. Rifkind: The UK has made significant reductions in its nuclear arsenal and maintains only the minimum deterrent required to guarantee our security. A world in which the nuclear forces of the United States of America and Russia were counted in hundreds rather than thousands of strategic nuclear warheads would be one in which we would respond further to the challenge of the global reduction of nuclear arms.

Mr. Smith: Can the Minister explain why the Government do not fulfil their obligations under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty and put all British nuclear weapons, including Trident, into the nuclear disarmament negotiations?

Mr. Rifkind: First, that is not a commitment under the non-proliferation treaty and, secondly, it would be a remarkably foolish initiative, which would weaken our essential defence. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, even if they fulfil all their obligations under the strategic arms reduction talks treaties, in 10 years' time Russia and the United States will each still have more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads. Trident will have a maximum of about 300. That is a suitable answer to his question.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, besides the considerable dangers that he has outlined from the ex-Soviet states, there is also the problem of proliferation in the third world? At least three more states have become nuclear powers in the past 10 years and several other states, including North Korea and a number of the middle eastern countries which form the market for its arms, are close to doing so. Does he further agree that, for Britain to get rid of her remaining minimum nuclear deterrent in the face of potential threats from the third world as well as the possible resuscitation of the Russian threat would be extraordinarily foolish?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The non-proliferation treaty, which came into force in the early 1970s, has been successful in influencing the level of nuclear weapons possession around the world. There have been relatively few suspected nuclear power states but the world remains a dangerous place. It is impossible to disinvent nuclear weapons technology and that is an important factor to bear in mind as we aspire to a safer world.

Mr. Fatchett: Is it not clear that, on this issue, the Government have not normally offered a positive agenda? They have talked in terms of yesterday's agenda and have mostly indulged in personal attacks on Opposition Members. It is encouraging on this occasion to see the Secretary of State taking a more positive approach. Is it not time for him to tell the country why the Government refuse to limit the number of warheads on Trident? Why

have they gone to the negotiations on the non-proliferation treaty in New York without a positive agenda and left the running on this issue, as on so many others, to other countries? Again, Britain has not had a voice. The only voice for Britain on this issue is that of the Labour party, which has put forward a positive programme for nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Rifkind: I note with relish the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity on the fact that when Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and the Leader of the Opposition are reminded of their Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament past they describe it as a personal attack. I should have thought that they would be proud of their past identity rather than so obviously ashamed of it. The hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of having an agenda from the past. It is significant that the Labour party is pronouncing its belief in "no first use" of nuclear weapons just at the time when the Russians have abandoned such a belief. The Labour party and the People's Republic of China are the only two arguing that philosophy.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the possession of nuclear weapons is in itself no guarantee of safety unless the Government concerned have the necessary ultimate will to use them should the occasion arise? Does he further agree that it is one thing for a party to say that it now agrees with possession and another for it to say that it would use them?

Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, and that is a relevant point. In an interview, the Opposition spokesman on defence was quoted as saying:
I am not saying that we will use Trident, I don't think we would. We just need it there as a standing reminder.
I do not think that that will terrify a potential nuclear enemy, but it certainly terrifies me.

Gulf War Syndrome

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what concrete evidence he has had of Gulf war syndrome. [20079]

Mr. Freeman: To date, we have found no convincing scientific or medical evidence from our investigations, or elsewhere, to suggest the existence of a Gulf war syndrome. However, despite the lack of evidence, my Department keeps an open mind and these investigations will continue.

Mr. Dalyell: From the admittedly circumstantial material that I sent to the Ministry of Defence a fortnight ago, is there any evidence that Gulf war syndrome could at least be related to precautionary medicine?

Mr. Freeman: No. I am aware of the work at Duke university and the Department of Defense in the United States, but at both places it is at a very preliminary stage and no conclusions may yet be drawn. It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House if I put in the Library—I shall send a copy to the hon. Gentleman—a report recently issued by the US Department of Defense, dated April 1995. It reviews progress to date on clinical evaluation of—from memory—some 15,000 American service men who have been subject to investigation, compared with about 200 in the United Kingdom. The report says that there remains no clinical evidence for a single or unique agent causing a Gulf war syndrome.

Dr. David Clark: While veterans of the second world war are very much in our thoughts, should we not also consider veterans of more recent conflicts such as the Gulf war? Why do the Government treat the Gulf war veterans who are suffering from Gulf war syndrome so shabbily? Will the Minister confirm that Colonel Johnson has been withdrawn from the medical examinations of our veterans and that only one doctor is involved in examining the several hundred veterans who claim that they are suffering from that syndrome?

Mr. Freeman: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should accept, on behalf of the Labour party, the existence of Gulf war syndrome before he has seen the evidence and the facts. The plain fact is that some 500 service men and women from our forces who served in the Gulf have expressed a claim or concern as to their health to the Ministry of Defence. About 200 of them have had a medical examination by a wing commander who is a medical expert and consultant and we have ensured that a report has been put in the British Medical Journal to reflect the results of examinations so far. It is still far too early to tell, but there is no clinical or medical evidence to suggest the existence of the syndrome. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and send him a copy of the British Medical Journal article.

Ex-service Organisations

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet representatives of (a) the War Widows Association and (b) the Royal British Legion and other ex-service organisations to discuss the interests of ex-service people and their dependants. [20080]

Mr. Freeman: We continue to have a close interest in the views of all associations representing service widows and ex-service men and women in all matters affecting the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Mackinlay: Did the Minister see that, although the chairwoman of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, Mrs. Irene Bloor, last week welcomed the Government's decision to accept the Lords amendments, she expressed grave concern about the younger war and service widows? Is he aware of the continuing anomaly and disparity between local authorities over the disregard in relation to housing benefit and council tax as applied to war widows? Is it not time that, in conjunction with the War Widows Association and other ex-service organisations, the Minister called a conference with a view to presenting a Bill to remedy the anomalies relating to war widows and war pensions, so that the matter may be put to rest in this very important anniversary year?

Mr. Freeman: During an excellent debate, the hon. Gentleman spoke at length on a previous occasion about war widows. He will realise, however, that when one deals with an occupational pension scheme—I am referring not to the Department of Social Security's war pension scheme, but to the Ministry of Defence's own armed forces pension scheme—there will always be so-called anomalies. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is a fundamental tenet of any occupational pension scheme that advances are for those beneficiaries and their

successors. On the narrower point about housing benefit, I shall certainly reflect the concern to my fellow Minister and ensure that it is followed up.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.].

Madam Speaker: Old soldiers never fade away. [Laughter.] I welcome the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) back to the House.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) still has a long way to go.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in recent times, the best interests of war widows and ex-service men have been served by Back-Bench Members of Parliament? I refer of course to an amendment on war pensions moved by one of my noble Friends in the other place and to my own and other representations in this place in respect of pre-1973 war widows. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that a single Minister dealt with such matters on behalf of war widows and ex-service personnel, to enable us to do our job better and to make it easier for those people?

Mr. Freeman: For the record, I am pleased to say that war widows receive about £7,000 a year tax free from the Department of Social Security. In addition, some may qualify for the armed forces pension scheme. That is a creditable record in comparison with that of many other countries. As for the narrower question about a single sub-department to deal with veterans, I have never known the hon. Gentleman to be abashed at having to deal with more than one Minister at a time. The plain facts are that a sub-department would be bureaucratic, and that the present system works well. The hon. Gentleman suggests a new organisation, but that would cost money and remove resources from the very people whom we want to help.

Mr. Jamieson: At a time when we are celebrating the gallantry and selfless bravery of our armed services, what measures does the Minister intend to take to compensate sailors who were exposed to the known risk of asbestos while serving in His and Her Majesties' ships in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and who are now dying in pain and poverty?

Mr. Freeman: Obviously any illness or death that, regrettably, is due to an incident connected with service will be reflected in the appropriate payments made by the Ministry of Defence. As for the merchant marine, if a condition can be classified as an industrial injury, the appropriate measures—

Mr. Jamieson: What about the Royal Navy?

Mr. Freeman: I have already said that if a condition is directly connected with service in the Royal Navy, the appropriate measures will apply. I am not aware of individual details, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me I shall certainly pursue the matter.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of Britain's nuclear weaponry requirements for the next decade. [20082]

Mr. Rifkind: In current and foreseeable international circumstances we believe that the United Kingdom will continue to require a minimum nuclear deterrent throughout the next decade. I am confident that the Trident system, within its ceiling of 96 warheads per boat, will provide the necessary force level after the WE177 free-fall bomb is withdrawn from service.

Mr. Corbyn: Can the Secretary of State tell us for what possible purpose this country is developing and maintaining nuclear weapons, and against whom they are directed? Does he agree that the holding of nuclear weapons is expensive, immoral and unjustifiable, and that, in the year in which the non-proliferation treaty is up for renegotiation, Britain could look the rest of the world in the eye only if we had a programme of removing all nuclear weapons and bases from this country and taking all nuclear weapons out of service, as our contribution to a peaceful nuclear-free world?

Mr. Rifkind: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views, which I know carefully reflect those that the Leader of the Opposition held 15 years ago. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have a conversation with the Leader of the Opposition to find out to what extent he and his right hon. Friend share those views, and to ask why the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench now seek to dissociate themselves from them.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House by telling us that the sub-strategic version of Trident will come into service as soon as the free-fall WE177 is phased out in the Royal Air Force'? The French maintain a proper graduated deterrence, with air-launched systems. If we cannot do that, can we at least make sure that there is no hiatus, or deterrent gap, in the British armed forces?

Mr. Rifkind: We have concluded that it is desirable to maintain a sub-strategic capability, which can be achieved through Trident at virtually no additional cost. That makes it an infinitely less expensive way of meeting the need than developing a new air-launched capability. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no gap in the existence of the capability.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further plans he has to reduce or withdraw the British military presence in former Yugoslavia. [20084]

Mr. Rifkind: We intend to maintain a major contribution to UNPROFOR in Bosnia so long as our forces can continue to carry out the UN mandate at an acceptable level of risk. The size of our contribution is kept under close review.

Mr. Gapes: Will the Secretary of State go beyond simply urging restraint on the parties in the conflict, and condemn the Croatian Government for the attack on the Serb-populated Krajina area? Will he also condemn the Serbs for taking UN Nepalese forces hostage? Will he make it clear that as soon as the military commanders on the ground recommend it, we will make immediate preparations for a withdrawal to stop loss of life among our troops?

Mr. Rifkind: The Security Council has made clear its condemnation of the Croatian action, which appears to go

beyond the immediate objective of controlling a road and may threaten the position of the whole enclave. Any question of a total withdrawal of UNPROFOR from Bosnia would not just be a matter on which the UN commanders express a view—important though that would be—and would clearly have far wider implications which would have to be addressed by the Security Council.

Sir Jim Spicer: I do not suppose that my right hon. and learned Friend had time yesterday to listen to the Jimmy Young show. Had he done so, he would have heard the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), assert that when he last went to Bosnia, he was determined that British forces would withdraw unilaterally but—thank goodness—he was overruled by the military commanders on the ground. In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to an earlier question, will he deny that that is possible?

Mr. Rifkind: The leader of the Liberal Democrats may wish to explain to the House his regular contortions of policy. I can only express our satisfaction that, on this occasion, he accepted the advice of the UN commanders whom he met.

Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State will know that the Opposition supported the Government's decision to send British troops into Bosnia for the limited and specific purpose of humanitarian aid and with clear rules of engagement which provided no undue risk to our troops. Can I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that—in keeping the position under review, both with our commanders on the spot and with our allies—were the Government to decide that the tasks for which the troops had been sent out could no longer be accomplished or that the risk to their lives had become an undue risk, the Opposition would not treat that in any partisan or narrow fashion?

Mr. Rifkind: I accept the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asks his question. When British troops are carrying out a difficult task in any part of the world, anything that is required for their safety and their safe return to this country should have the support of the whole House.

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that elements of the Royal Anglian regiment have recently served in former Yugoslavia. Following the presentation of new colours to the Royal Anglian regiment last Saturday by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government will continue to maintain the front-line capability of that proud and ancient regiment?

Mr. Rifkind: I can say to my hon. and learned Friend that we acknowledge the splendid contribution which that fine regiment makes to the UN and to Her Majesty's forces.

Sea Dumping

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had concerning the potential dangers of ordnance, chemicals and other materials dumped in the sea between south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland. [20085]

Mr. Freeman: The licensing procedure for the dump site between south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland involved the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office. My Department keeps closely in touch with other Government Departments on these issues.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm the information obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the MOD has dumped 1 million tonnes of munitions, plus bombs and chemical weapons—including arsenic and nerve gas—in sites at sea including the Clyde and the North channel? Will he announce a monitoring scheme to ensure the safety of fishing boats, submarines and those of us who live around the coast in that area from harm from those highly dangerous substances?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is right about the North channel. After the war, in 1945 and 1946, rockets with phosgene were dumped in the channel, as has been publicly disclosed for many years. As part of their routine monitoring of coastal waters, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office marine laboratory will be conducting standard water sampling tests in the North channel.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Northern Ireland Office been consulted on that issue, bearing in mind the plans for gas pipe connections and electric connectors, and the movement of the sea bed?

Mr. Freeman: I shall ensure that the Northern Ireland Office is consulted.

Hydrographic Office

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of his policy on the Hydrographic Office. [20086]

Mr. Freeman: The Government attach great importance to a specialist hydrographic capability to provide effective support to Royal Navy operations.

Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend will understand that it is not simply because my brother-in-law is an officer in the hydrographic service that I attach such importance to its role in protecting this country's vital national interests. What reassurance can my right hon Friend give me that the service will have adequate ships to enable it to continue to defend those vital national interests into its third century?

Mr. Freeman: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that we have ordered a new ocean survey vessel, which is to be named HMS Scott, after Scott of the Antarctic. The ship will fly the white ensign, have a royal naval crew and be of great help to the hydrographic service.

Deaths (Active Duty)

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's armed forces died on active service during 1994. [20087]

Mr. Freeman: Nine members of Her Majesty's armed forces died last year as a result of hostile and enemy

action. A further four service men died following road traffic accidents while serving with United Nations forces in Bosnia.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is not it instructive to contrast those figures with the number of women who qualified as war widows during the calendar year 1994—more than 1,600—and to recognise, at this time when we are celebrating and commemorating the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe, that so-called war widows are not solely by any means the widows of men killed in action during the second world war?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is useful to remember that 48,500 war widows have recently benefited from the decision to ensure that their war widows pension is restored on the death or loss of a second husband, that the numbers are being added to at the rate of 1,600 per annum and that the death of husbands who have died recently can be traced back to service in the British armed forces. About 66,000 widows receive benefit from the armed forces parliamentary pension scheme since the loss of their husbands was due to natural causes, not to service.

Trident

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the current ceiling of warheads per Trident submarine meets the United Kingdom's minimum deterrent needs. [20088]

Mr. Rifkind: The Government have said that each Trident boat will carry not more than 96 warheads. What we actually deploy at any particular time, to provide a minimum deterrent and to ensure the same quality of deterrence as we required from Polaris, may be considerably less and will depend on our current assessment of a range of factors.

Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he do some lateral thinking and tell us the implications if Britain announced that it would deploy no more warheads on Trident than it deploys on Polaris, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) advocated in the New Statesman this month?

Mr. Rifkind: The option to which my hon. Friend refers, which is the official view of the Labour party I understand, suggests a simplistic misunderstanding, based on an inability to compare Polaris with Trident. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his colleagues appear to he unaware that they have not taken into account the sub-strategic role of Trident. They seem to be unaware of the lower yield of each Trident warhead compared with that of Polaris, and of the need to take into account the military capabilities and defensive systems of a potential nuclear adversary. That is why their policy is unsound and should not be supported.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State welcome the statement by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. that it no longer manufactures or processes any fissile material for use in nuclear weapons on any of its sites in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the United Kingdom Government themselves have


announced a cessation of the production of fissile material for explosives purposes. That shows our commitment to a cut-off convention.

United States Air Force

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the role of the United States Air Force in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [20089]

Mr. Freeman: The USAF presence in the United Kingdom forms an important part of the United States' continuing commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the security of Europe. Her Majesty's Government welcome the contribution that those forces also provide to United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations.

Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two USAF bases in my constituency, RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, are expanding in numbers and importance at this time? Will my right hon. Friend join me, at this historic time, in saluting the USAF presence in this country, which helped to see off the forces of tyranny 50 years ago and helped to preserve democracy in Europe during the long and bitter years of the cold war?

Mr. Freeman: It is fitting, as we approach victory in Europe day, to pay tribute to the United States Air Force, based largely in this country—the Third Air Force today—which helped win freedom and victory for the allies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May. [20106]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Flynn: Does not the letter from my constituent, Mr. W. D. Knight, express the opinions of millions of people in this country when he says that he will never again buy a national lottery ticket? How, he asks, can the nation—[interruption.]—gain £14 million of value by buying papers without copyright, many of which papers we already own? Will the Prime Minister guarantee today that, in future, in that instance and all others, national lottery moneys will go to genuine good causes of health, education and crime prevention, not to the rich and the greedy?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituent feels like that, because the proceeds of lottery money do go to very good causes, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that. He is, of course, wrong in the assertion that the lottery money was used to purchase papers already owned by the state. That is not the case. What were purchased were the non-state papers, as I told the House last week.

Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend, in determining Government policy, sometimes receive advice from advisers who one year suggest one thing and

another year suggest something else? If they do that, does he take much notice of them, and does he consider that that is what the Labour party is doing?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we receive advice from many sources, some of which I take, much of which I do not. When advisers behave as my hon. Friend proposes, I tend to give less credence to their advice.

Mr. Blair: On the Government's policy, revealed this morning, to tax the mortgage insurance payments of sick and unemployed people, will the Prime Minister confirm that, at 10 o'clock this morning, the chairman of the Tory party said that there was no such policy; at 11 o'clock this morning, Downing street said that there was a policy but they were reviewing it; at 12.3 pm, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described the policy as lunacy; and at 12.42 pm the Chancellor issued a statement, saying that he had now completed the review and was ditching the policy? [Interruption.] Does not that show the utterly chaotic shambles that is his Government?

The Prime Minister: I must say that that is extremely amusing and I can see that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed it, as did everyone else. The reality is that he is wrong. I can certainly confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend has been reviewing the tax treatment of mortgage protection policies for some months. In light of the misguided reports that appeared this morning, he has removed the uncertainty that would otherwise have been removed in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Blair: It is strange that the chairman of the Conservative party did not know about that—or perhaps it is not so strange. Has not the situation arisen because the Government are cutting mortgage help to the unemployed and therefore forcing all new home owners from 1 October to pay for mortgage insurance, as well as the new insurance tax? Rather than climbing down from the consequences of a mistaken policy, would it not be better to drop the policy that is penalising home owners?

The Prime Minister: Finance Bill matters are generally withheld by the Treasury for reasons that even the right hon. Gentleman should understand. We give very generous help to people who are unemployed and in receipt of mortgages. We have provided such help for a long time and no one can question the growth in home ownership that has occurred under this Government. There is only one party in this country that truly supports home ownership and it is sitting on the Government Benches.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will recall, I hope with pleasure, the very successful visit that he paid to Taunton last month. Is he aware that the local Liberal Democrats have produced, as an estimate of the policing costs for that visit, the wholly spurious and fantastic figure of £500,000; whereas the Avon and Somerset constabulary has said that it cost £2,000? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is typical of the dishonesty and the bogus statistics being used by both Opposition parties in the local election campaign?

The Prime Minister: There does seem to be some slight difference between the two estimates of the cost of my visit to Taunton. As to the substantive underlying


point that my hon. Friend raises, it is the case—and it has been so for many years—that public figures, particularly those who are answerable to the public, must and do travel around the country. If the Liberal party is suggesting that public figures should not travel around the country because public disorder results from such visits from time to time, I do not think that the people of this country would accept that proposition.

Mr. Ashdown: When it comes to bogus statistics I suspect that the people of this country know very well where they are coming from.
I welcome the very clear statement that the Secretary of State for Defence made just a few moments ago that, whatever action Britain might take in Bosnia, we would not act unilaterally. Does the Prime Minister agree that the situation now developing in Bosnia and Croatia must give cause for grave concern and that, if the conflict is not to spread disastrously, it is vital and urgent that the international community makes every effort to ensure that the second front of confrontation that has now opened in Croatia is closed as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I hoped for a second that the right hon. Gentleman was about to clear up the dispute about the cost of my visit to Taunton. Perhaps he will do that on another occasion.
As to the main part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about Croatia, there is no doubt that yesterday's Croatian attack, in which some United Nations peacekeepers were wounded, and the retaliation today by the Serbs, have created a very serious situation, as has the Bosnian parties' decision not to extend the cessation of hostilities agreement. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the UN Security Council has called on the Croatians to halt their offensive in west Slavonia and I hope that the Serbs will also stop retaliating against Croatian towns and cities. It is a serious and a grave situation; no one can have any doubt about that. Over many months the United Nations forces, both in Croatia and in Bosnia, have helped to limit the scale and the extent of the conflict. That has been the case for two years. I warned more than a month ago that returning to all-out war could make the position of the United Nations protection forces absolutely untenable. I repeat that warning today. Neither in Croatia nor in Bosnia will renewed fighting produce a satisfactory settlement—or a settlement of any sort.

Deregulation

Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a seminar about expediting his deregulation plans for the Ministers he has appointed with responsibility for deregulation in all Departments. [20107]

The Prime Minister: From time to time I hold meetings with colleagues to take stock of progress on deregulation. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade most recently met the appropriate Ministers on 27 April and discussed progress on deregulation measures and steps to improve enforcement procedures.

Mr. Steen: The Prime Minister's personal crusade to rid the country of red tape is greatly welcomed by Conservative Members, but is not the real problem at operational level, where officials are more zealous in

enforcing regulations than in trying to reduce the impact of regulations that affect our industries' competitiveness with European countries which do not have all those rules? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, take a fresh initiative that will get to the root of the problem?

The Prime Minister: We are looking at the over-zealous enforcement of regulations. My hon. Friend is right. At national and local levels, over-zealous enforcement of regulations, particularly those affecting small businesses, causes a great deal of distress and worry. He is equally right that deregulation is central to our economic policy. He may be reassured to know that we now have a programme whereby more than 1,000 regulations are earmarked for amendment or repeal and we expect to have dealt with about half of them by the end of the year.

Engagements

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May. [20108]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Ewing: Now that the Prime Minister has finally plucked up the courage to allow the voters of Perth and Kinross to take their democratic decision, is it his intention to endorse the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland that any reference to Scotland as a region is merely a matter of geographical error, or will he state clearly that Scotland is indeed a nation and not a region, and, therefore, we should have the right to self-determination? When he is in Scotland this weekend, will he launch an educational project to tell his Back Benchers the difference between a region and a nation?

The Prime Minister: There are four nations within the United Kingdom. Scotland is one of them. I look to see it remaining in the United Kingdom and I very much regret that the hon. Lady and her parliamentary colleagues seek to make it independent and outside the United Kingdom.

Sir Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to compare his current gas and electricity bills with the size of those bills only a few years ago? Will he reflect on the success of the Government's policy in producing real reductions in the charge for energy? Will he join me in wondering how local government candidates representing the new, clean Labour party can produce leaflets which say that the Government are bleeding us dry through privatised gas and electricity companies? Does he agree that the new, clean Labour party is using the same dirty tactics of the old, discredited Labour party?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts the matter exceedingly clearly and well and I entirely agree with him. There is no doubt that in general prices have fallen in the privatised industries, though that is not remotely what Opposition Members expected. The right hon. Gentleman, now the leader of the Labour party, once said of electricity privatisation:
it is barely an issue that prices will rise because of privatisation."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 684.]
He was wrong then and he is wrong now.

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May. [20109]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Jones: The Prime Minister will be aware from the latest economic figures that a large proportion of the 0.8 per cent. growth in the first quarter was attributed not to manufacturing but to sales of national lottery tickets. Is not the Prime Minister concerned that using the proceeds of the lottery to enrich one or perhaps two Tory Members will put the faltering recovery in further jeopardy? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the hon. Member for davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and ask him to pay the money back?

The Prime Minister: I am inclined to say to the hon. Lady, come off it. The growth in the economy was 4 per cent. last year, and is estimated at 3 per cent. this year and 3 per cent. next year. When did the Labour party in government ever produce such growth figures? The answer is that it never did. The hon. Lady knows that growth has primarily been built on exports. When was there an export record similar to that which British industry has enjoyed over the past 14 months? Nine or 10 months out of the last 13 or 14 months, there has been a new record in exports as our competitiveness and capacity to penetrate markets in Europe and the rest of the world increase. That is what is happening with economic growth at the moment, and it has never been matched by the Labour party.

Points of Order

Mr. Richard Burden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you advise me of the implications for the procedure of the House of research published today indicating that Ministers appointed by the present Prime Minister or the previous Prime Minister hold a total of 125 directorships and 30 consultancies?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman ought to table a question to seek information of that nature.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance, because I believe that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that the rate of growth under the last Labour Government was lower than under this Conservative Government. While the Conservatives have been in office, growth—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The House must get accustomed to what points of order are all about. If the hon. Gentleman wants to correct the Prime Minister, the Order Paper is available for him to do so.

Forensic Testing (Road Deaths)

Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the forensic testing of those alleged to be involved in causing death as a result of road traffic incidents.
I do so following representations made to me by the family of Thomas Wellman, many of whose members live in my constituency. Mr. Wellman died after being hit by a driver who was over the limit and whose punishment was in the same league as that given to Eric Cantona—community service. My Bill would take a small step towards dealing with the horrific issues arising from drink-driving.
Throughout the European Union, 50,000 people are killed every year on the roads, which is the equivalent of an A320 airbus crashing every day of the week. The latest provisional figures for the United Kingdom suggest that 3,651 people died on our roads in 1994, which is the equivalent of an A320 airbus crashing every week that Parliament sits. If we saw road deaths in those terms, the House might take the issue much more seriously.
From time to time, the House deals with the causes of that carnage. For example, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has just piloted a Bill through Committee covering the testing of new drivers. Such measures are important. Christopher Brown of the statistics directorate of the Department of Transport states:
We cannot prevent people aging but we could prevent all road deaths if only, as road users, we took more care.
On 22 March, I received an interesting answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department after tabling a number of parliamentary questions about the role of coroners:
The available information collected on deaths reported to coroners is published in an annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin.
The latest bulletin, 'Statistics of Death Reported to Coroners: England and Wales, 1993', issue 7/94, was published on 21 April 1994 and is available in the Library. Specific information on road deaths is not collected separately".—[Official Report, 22 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 201.]
That really is not good enough. I would ask the Minister to speak to his colleagues and treat this as a matter of urgency. Coroners, police and magistrates must be required to maintain statistics properly, so that some of these issues can be dealt with in a less haphazard way.
The Bill deals with two aspects: first, testing for blood alcohol levels at the scene of an incident. The latest figures available, for 1993, show that 25 of the 52 police authorities now routinely test after all incidents; a further five test after fatalities or serious injuries; and one tests after all fatalities. In other words, 21 police authorities leave it to the discretion of the officers.
My Bill would make blood alcohol testing mandatory at the incident, except when officers were otherwise committed to the safety and well-being of others. In such cases, tests would have to be done at the earliest practical time. That changes the emphasis in the Road Traffic Act 1988 to one of compulsion, by changing section 6 to read that a constable
will require him to provide a specimen",


instead of the current wording, which is "may". Similarly, the Bill would change section 6 to require the person allegedly causing a death to give a sample, by changing "may" to "will" in the relevant subsections.
The second category concerns a person who allegedly caused a crash but was himself hospitalised. Section 9 of the 1988 Act covers that. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) sought to improve its wording in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, but was told by the Minister that blood samples could be taken only by registered medical practitioners. The BMA, he said, would be very unhappy about samples being taken from someone who was unconscious and had not given his consent. Although the Minister was sympathetic to the point, he said that the Government could not move towards such a policy, because our law fundamentally depends on the consent of the person involved. I understand the BMA's position, but I cannot say that I agree with it. There is always a broader social aspect to be considered.
I believe, however, that I can now present the House with a mechanism which overcomes this ethical argument. My discussions with the BMA suggest that it would regard it as acceptable, too. The changes that I propose to section 9 would have the effect of a sample being taken and provided for analysis at the earliest possible time, provided that the sampling does not have a detrimental effect on the health of the patient.
My provision would not allow the prosecuting authority access to the information until the patient was well enough to give consent. If he subsequently refused consent, the courts would be empowered to interpret his refusal against the background of other information available to them. I believe that refusal without medical cause should always be interpreted thus, and be subject to interpretation by the courts.
There are huge technical difficulties in testing for intoxicants other than alcohol, except under laboratory conditions. Section 10 of the 1988 Act must be enforced to ensure that drug abusers as well as drinkers cannot avoid prosecution. Consistent with my earlier reference to people alleged to have caused a death who are themselves hospitalised, I think that any refusal to provide a sample under section 10 should be subject to interpretation by the courts.
Following all these changes, enforcement should take place at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that forensic samples have the maximum value.
These are small changes to the law, and, when the Bill is published, I should like some sign from the Government that they will give me clear support to enable our common objective to be achieved. The

families of victims killed on the roads deserve the maximum support from society, which the law fails to give them at present.
Cases like that of Thomas Wellman regularly occur throughout the country—many hon. Members have had them brought to their attention—but they could and should be avoided. This House should make it absolutely clear in the strongest possible terms that we will not defend the drink-driver.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Stephen Byers, Dr. Michael Clark, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Ken Livingstone and Mr. Ian Pearson.

FORENSIC TESTING (ROAD DEATHS)

Mr. Andrew Miller accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the forensic testing of those alleged to be involved in causing death as a result of road traffic incidents: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is fairly widely known that, on Thursday of this week, arrangements have been made for Mr. Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein to launch in the House of Commons a book that he has apparently written. I do not know what the rules are or what guidance is given on such matters, but presumably an hon. Member has sponsored a room for Mr. Adams, who wishes the part of the United Kingdom that he inhabits to be removed from the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
Is there any guidance to be given? Are there any relevant rules? Perhaps you could suggest to the hon. Member who has done this that it might have been ill-advised.

Madam Speaker: Accommodation in the House of Commons may not be used for commercial purposes. [Interruption.] Order. This is a very important point of order, and a genuine one too, I may say.
As I was saying, the accommodation in the House of Commons may not be used for commercial purposes such as launching books, especially those written by persons who are not Members of the House. The hon. Member who booked the Jubilee Room for that purpose will have to make alternative arrangements elsewhere.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December]:
That this House, at its rising on Friday 5th May, do adjourn till Tuesday 9th May.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Atomic Energy Authority Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Ordered,
That the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 and 8, Schedule 3, Clause 9, Schedule 4, Clauses 10 to 14, New Schedules.—[Mr. Page.]

New clause 1

ACCESS TO POLICE NATIONAL COMPUTER

'(1) Nothing in this Act shall entitle any person or persons to whom anything is transferred by a transfer scheme under this Act to have access to any criminal record information held on the police national computer, notwithstanding that any such access was held by the Authority at the time of transfer.
(2) In this section, "criminal record information" and "police national computer" shall have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by Order made by statutory instrument provide.'.— [Mr. Cohen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 1 is designed as a probe to try to get some answers from the Government on this issue. Serious implications arise from extending access to the police national computer to the Atomic Energy Authority. New clause 1 seeks to stop such access.
According to official crime statistics, about one in three males in this country and one in 10 females have a criminal record and that excludes most motoring offences. Some of those convictions are minor, some happened a long time ago and some are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That is sensitive information, which should not automatically preclude someone from getting a job. Such status should not constantly be used against the individual by the state, employers, would-be employers or other individuals.
There is a danger of unauthorised access to and use of the police national computer data and widening direct access to it broadens the scope for malpractice.
On 22 March, in a parliamentary written answer to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Government agreed to widen direct access to the police national computer to include the Atomic Energy Authority on behalf of the whole nuclear industry. There are many implications, and I shall deal with some of them.
In 1986, the Police Complaints Authority investigated a misuse of personal data on the PNC, and a report was made to Parliament—HC 425—in July 1986. The report suggested that the following recommendations should form the basis of instructions to each police force. It said that
access to personal data held on the PNC must be permitted only for purposes necessary for the efficient discharge of bona fide police duties, and personal and private use must be strictly forbidden… It is essential to secure the integrity of the PNC. To achieve this, relevant transactions must be subject to monitoring and validation by random sampling; validation must reach the actual reason for a transaction being originated.

Will the same rules, guidelines and recommendations apply to the AEA when it has access, as the Government are allowing?
3.45 pm
The report continues:
accurate records of transactions must be made which identify the persons responsible for initiating and handling a request for information … all officers who may have cause to access the PNC must be directed and reminded from time to time that PNC records are confidential, that such information must not be disclosed to unauthorised persons and that abuse of the system will render them liable to disciplinary or statutory sanctions.
Again, will that be the case once the AEA has such powers?
The report then says:
since originators may be called upon to justify their transactions possibly weeks or months after the event, they should make a record of sufficient detail to refresh their memories in order to avoid unwarranted suspicion of malpractice… officers who receive requests for information from any person which would necessitate access to the PNC must satisfy themselves that the purpose can properly be regarded as a genuine police matter before responding to such requests.
Those were the recommendations of the Police Complaints Authority in 1986. Can the Under-Secretary of State give a firm guarantee that similar recommendations will be met by those to whom the functions are being transferred—in this case, the AEA, if it obtains access to police records as proposed in the parliamentary answer on 22 March?
It is worth noting that the 1990 annual report of the Police Complaints Authority said:
over the past year there has been a noticeable increase in the number of complaints about police officers making use of the PNC or force intelligence records for other than official purposes".
The 1990 report also drew attention to the fact that the PCA had used its powers
on several occasions to recommend disciplinary charges to be preferred against officers who break the rules… this seems to have upset a few of the chief officers (of police) who do not consider it serious enough to warrant taking formal disciplinary action.
What will be the view of the AEA in this respect? Will disciplinary action be taken against those who breach the rules, whatever the rules are? That is one of the questions I am asking the Government.
In 1992, the PCA emphasised that the guidelines
are still relevant and we commend them to forces.
That is a gentle reminder that the recommendations of the 1986 report are still required for the police. They should therefore apply to the AEA and others who will get access to PNC records.
The 10th report of the Data Protection Registrar, in 1994, noted:
there is something special about criminal convictions.
This suggests that the body responsible for the protection of individuals is hinting that criminal record data should be afforded statutory protection. There should be statutory protection for those records across the board before handing out access powers to Government Departments and agencies such as the AEA.
The implication of all of that is that, nine years after the publication of HC 425, the PCA's recommendations have not been adequately implemented by all police forces, and personal data held on the PNC are not safe. If the police are having difficulty getting their house in order, how can private sector organisations that receive transferred rights be expected to do so?
On 15 December 1994, the Prime Minister revised the vetting procedure, and steps were taken to widen access to the PNC. Government Departments now have some direct access to the PNC, but there has been little discussion of the safeguards that are required to protect those who are vetted and to protect individuals from misuse of wider access to the PNC.
Was the Data Protection Registrar consulted on giving the AEA and others that access to police records? What did she recommend, if she was consulted? That is a question that the Minister should answer. For instance, what instructions has the Minister issued about access to the PNC by the AEA? Perhaps he can place that information on the record.
When I asked the Department of Trade and Industry about its access to PNC records, it said that it would be confined to a small number of personnel within the DTI security section, and that similar levels of operational, technical and physical security would be applied to information obtained from the PNC as would apply at the PNC itself. In addition, compliance audits would be undertaken by representatives of the police service and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. That is all very well for the DTI. Will the same conditions apply to the AEA?
My new clause does not prohibit access to the PNC for all time. The existing arrangements could apply: the AEA police could liaise with the official police who control the PNC for information. The Minister must be aware that the Home Office is about to outline its own action following its consultation paper "Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Purposes", Cm 2319. That paper explored the option that official vetting should be sanctioned by legislation.
The envisaged circumstances in which vetting is, or might be, appropriate included national security; maintaining probity in the administration of the law; protecting the vulnerable—for example, children and the elderly; national treasures—for example, museums; licensing "fit and proper" persons—for example, taxi drivers and school inspectors; investigation of crime by prosecuting agencies other than the police—for example, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise; and crime prevention, if there was a clear public interest at stake and evidence of serious risk to members of the public.
Will those categories, or perhaps other specific categories, be extended to the AEA—by stealth, perhaps—for obtaining direct access to the PNC information?
Clearly, the effect of my new clause can be changed by Home Office legislation once Parliament has established a vetting agency. We should not really be making this change before the procedure is looked at as a whole. Parliament would have to approve the vetting procedures; unlike the current Bill. under which the Secretary of State can transfer the ability to vet without recourse to Parliament. In my view, that should be unacceptable in a democracy.
There is no need for an automatic transfer of vetting powers. Private organisations that need to vet against police records will be authorised by the Home Office legislation, which establishes a vetting agency, so I do not think that there is a case for extending that now.
Those are the most general points in relation to the new clause, but I shall make some wider points as well.
This Bill is about preparing for the privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority. Various parts will be privatised—perhaps AEA Technology or schemes involving various companies, sections or individuals. The disposal of those parts of the AEA can take place without any further reference to Parliament. Clause 7 allows the AEA to sell off the companies established, as long as it has the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury.
Where does that leave security vetting and PNC access by the AEA as a whole? Will the powers pass to those parts that have been privatised? That would be a major extension of the powers. It would mean giving privatised firms access to state records—people's criminal records—on the PNC. Will the access be allowed just to the Government division of the AEA? If so, will it be only for its own purposes, or will there be extensions, so that it will be able to use that access for all sorts of other purposes? We need answers.
As well as being in the nuclear business, the AEA covers many other areas, such as the environment, energy, engineering and research and consultancy services. Will access to the records relate to those parts of its work? On the environment, could it mean that someone who had a criminal record as a result of taking part in an anti-road demonstration—we have seen many of those recently—would be automatically banned from a job once the AEA gained access to those records?
What about access to the PNC for the research and consultancy services in which the AEA now participates? That potentially involves a huge widening of the powers. At the far end of that, the AEA could make a business out of its access to PNC records. What are the limitations?
What are the role and the scope of the AEA police? The Bill is about the Atomic Energy Authority, and there are huge implications for the AEA police. Despite that, they are not even mentioned in the Bill. That is incredible Government neglect, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what their role will be, particularly in relation to the would-be privatised sectors. Will they receive the information from the police national computer, which they could then hand to the privatised companies? I hope that we will have a statement about that.
According to the parliamentary answer of 22 March, the AEA gains access to PNC records on behalf of the entire nuclear industry—Nirex, British Nuclear Fuels and so on. What governs the transfer of the data obtained by the AEA to the rest of the nuclear industry? What governs the subsequent use of that information by the rest of the industry?
We need answers about that before the Government continue to give access in the way specified in the parliamentary answer of 22 March. That answer was the thin end of the wedge. It implies security vetting for employees, potential employees and contractors—that is allegedly its purpose—but it does not lay that out specifically. Access might be obtained for other purposes as well.
The parliamentary answer talks of limited access to the PNC, simply to find out whether an individual has a criminal record. That is only one step away from direct access to the entire record. It is only one step from extending access, which, according to one parliamentary answer is "solely for security vetting" of employees, potential employees and contractors, to other purposes about which we have not been told. Those extensions


could easily come about by just another written parliamentary answer, as happened in relation to access to the PNC. We should know those points. That is the thin end of the wedge.
Access acknowledges the extraordinary and excessive power of the nuclear industry. No other industry in the country has, or is being given, access to the PNC. Why is the nuclear industry singled out? Why is it so special that it must have that access to the PNC? If it is so special, why is it being privatised? Surely, if it is so important that it must be carefully controlled by, for example, the AEA police, it should not be in private hands. We need an answer to that.
4 pm
The nuclear industry is almost like a state within a state, with its own police force. Its powers could easily be extended, so that it has its own self-determined powers. Access to PNC records is a step along that path. I do not want this point to be over-emphasised, but I remind the House of the murder of Hilda Murrell in the 1980s. No one knows for sure why that came about, but it has been talked about that she was murdered because of her anti-nuclear campaigning. That point must be borne in mind. That is why we should not give direct access to organisations such as the nuclear industry.
One wonders whether the nuclear industry, after gaining a taste for power exercised in secret, and perhaps after it is privatised, will be restricted purely to security vetting of employees, potential employees and contractors, or whether it might seek to extend its powers and its use of the records to which it gains access.
It is the police's computer. In effect, they are the owners on behalf of the state. They have overall responsibility for its security and safe running. If access is extended, their control is undermined. I wonder whether the Government, when they extended access to the AEA and others, consulted the police? If so, what was their view? The Minister owes it to the House to tell us.
I have spelt out a number of implications. A number of questions arise and need a response from the Minister. I await that response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The new clause would introduce a specific clause in the Bill to prevent AEA Technology from gaining access to criminal record information held on the police national computer. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that access to the computer should be strictly limited, although, in this case, I assure him that his concerns are misplaced and his new clause unnecessary. Having said that, I welcome the opportunity to give a response for the record, which he has requested.
Where required, the UK Atomic Energy Authority directorate of civil nuclear security carries out vetting of authority staff. As its work has nothing to do with AEA Technology's business, it will not be one of those activities that it assumes after vesting. AEA Technology will not therefore have access to the computer either as

an incorporated, publicly owned company or as a privatised company. I hope that that goes a long way towards setting the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
Discussions in Committee took a different tack in that hon. Members on both sides were so concerned to ensure that AEA Technology staff working in sensitive areas continued to be carefully vetted. As I explained then, it would be a prior condition that all employees of AEA Technology, of a successor company or companies, or, for that matter, of any company working on UKAEA sites that deal with special nuclear material, meet the authority's vetting requirements.
Where AEA Technology undertakes work for other Government customers, it will also have to meet any vetting requirements that they may specify. That means that it will operate on exactly the same basis, and will be subject to exactly the same requirements, as any other private sector contractor undertaking work for Government customers.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not going down the enticing byways and highways which he opened up, which go well beyond the scope of the Bill. I am quite sure that you, Madam Speaker, would call me to order if I went down those routes. I hope that my reassurances to the hon. Gentleman will enable him to withdraw his new clause.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I support the new clause. In his lucid presentation, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) put his finger on one of the Bill's problems—the fact that it leaves far too much unsaid. It would be left to Ministers to come to the Committee or to the House and give assurances on matters which would be far better dealt with by a clause or subsection in the Bill.
In Committee, we spoke at great length about nuclear proliferation and special nuclear materials, and were given many assurances. This year, we are seeking to renew the non-proliferation treaty, but there is nothing specific in the Bill about that, or about the Atomic Energy Authority police force and its continuing role. If AEA Technology must be privatised, the powers of that force must be spelled out again if possible.
I hope that the Department will seriously consider the matters that we raised in Committee and that we will raise today on Report. They are not intended to frustrate in any way the Government's efforts. We have made it perfectly clear that we are opposed in principle to selling AEA Technology, but the new clause has nothing to do with the form or structure of privatisation. It is about the genuine concern over the way in which security matters will continue to be handled. I hope that, on reflection, the Government will propose changes in another place that will go some way towards meeting our concerns.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. My speech was longer than his and contained many points, none of which he addressed. I am prepared to withdraw the new clause, but perhaps I could ask him to read my speech and write to me, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) suggested, address some of those issues when the Bill is in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

TRANSFER SCHEMES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 10, leave out lines 34 to 42.
No. 24, in page 11, leave out lines 12 to 14.
No. 3, in page 11, line 33, at end insert—

'(1A) The Authority and any person to whom anything has been transferred in accordance with a transfer scheme may issue a joint certificate stating that any liability specified in the certificate is a liability which was intended to be, and was, vested by virtue of the scheme in such one of them as may be so specified.
(1B) Any certificate under sub-paragraph (1A) above—

(a) shall, if given with the concurrence of every person who is entitled to enforce the liability at the time of the giving of the certificate, be conclusive evidence for all purposes of the fact referred to in that sub-paragraph, and
(b) shall, in any other case, be conclusive evidence of that fact as between the persons giving or concurring in the giving of the certificate.'.


No. 4, in page 11, line 36, leave out 'such a joint certificate' and insert
'a joint certificate under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) above'.
No. 5, in page 11, line 36, leave out 'or right' and insert 'right or liability'.—[Mr. Page.]

Clause 2

POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Robert Jackson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) No direction under subsection (1) above shall be given unless a draft of such a direction has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by members of each House.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
'(9) The Secretary of State shall not direct the Authority to make more than one scheme unless such a direction in his opinion will promote the national interest.'.

Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for selecting my amendment for debate. It reflects the concern that I expressed on Second Reading. I should have liked to take part in the debate in Committee on an Opposition amendment which raised the same issue. Unfortunately, as the record of the proceedings in Standing Committee will show, I was prevented from serving on it by the intervention of a Government Whip. Therefore, I was unable to take part in that debate and to represent my constituents, among whom are numbered almost a third of the Atomic Energy Authority's employees. The amendment reflects their interests, and, I believe, the national interest.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to consider the structure of AEA Technology as it will be when it is privatised. I should say at the outset that it is obvious that the amendment gives considerable discretion to the Government as to the form and timing of the parliamentary debate which it envisages.
In Committee, the Minister and a number of my hon. Friends chose to interpret a similar amendment as requiring the Government to seek the authorisation of Parliament for specific details of the sale, in circumstances which would be commercially disruptive. I do not believe that that was a proper interpretation of the Opposition amendment, nor do I accept that it would be a proper interpretation of the amendment which I am moving.
For the avoidance of doubt, this amendment is drafted to enable the Government to fulfil their terms by making an early statement of their broad scheme of privatisation at a time of their choosing and not at all at a time which would be commercially disruptive. The Opposition spokesman tried to make that point in Committee, but I am afraid that he was brushed aside. I am sure that he would confirm now that he understands the matter in the same way.

Dr. Moonie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment, which gives us another opportunity to consider the whole question of parliamentary accountability. I can confirm—I shall be speaking at more length later—that we shall indeed be supporting the amendment. If anything, the amendment is a much better way of handling the issue than the way in which we chose to debate it in Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's amendment will be given consideration.

Mr. Jackson: Why do I believe that the amendment is necessary? The speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy on Second Reading showed that he at least recognised the sensitivity of whether AEA Technology was to be privatised as an entity or to be broken up for disposal. During that debate, he sought to give me some assurances on the matter. Specifically, he said:
the Government agree that AEA Technology should continue to be managed as a single, integrated whole".
My purpose in moving the amendment is to ensure that this House and another place are given an opportunity to see that this commitment is met or that we are given an explanation, if it cannot be met, of why that should be so.
I fully accepted what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in that debate about the inevitability of a degree of uncertainty. He was justified in saying:
Decisions about the method and timing of the sale can similarly be taken only in the light of market circumstances at the time",
and that final decisions on the form of privatisation must
depend on AEA Technology's performance in the months ahead, on the needs and requirements of customers and on confirmation from the market that a unitary sale will secure best overall value for money for the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 14 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 707.]
If the Government cannot for those good reasons make a clear statement about the form of privatisation, in line with their commitment to AEA Technology as a "single, integrated whole", they should be prepared to make a statement to Parliament when they are able to do so. The purpose of my amendment is to provide such an opportunity for the Government.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy argued in Committee—I dare say that he will try to argue again today—that the amendment was not necessary, because the privatisation measure simply conformed to standard-form privatisation provisions that the House has approved on previous occasions. That point was made in the Department of Trade and Industry's press release, published on the same day as the Atomic Energy Authority Bill. I must tell my hon. Friend that I cannot accept that argument.
I have looked at the other cases of privatisation, and it is quite clear that there is a much more fundamental question mark hanging over the structure of AEA Technology and privatisation than there was in respect of the structure of other industries when they were privatised.
For example, in the case of the electricity industry, there was a restructuring before privatisation, enabled by the Electricity Act 1989, which made it clear that the industry was to be sold as 12 supply companies and two generating companies. Similarly, the Water Act 1989 created 10 water and sewerage companies, successor companies to the regional water boards. In short, Parliament was fully apprised of the basic form of the proposed privatisation in those important instances, even before publication of the Bills to privatise those industries.
With regard to AEA Technology, there is, however, a fundamental ambiguity of approach on the part of the Government. It is public knowledge that Barclays de Zoete Wedd consultants recommended the break-up of AEA Technology. We may deduce that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy rejected that advice on behalf of the Government when he said that the company should be managed as a "single, integrated whole", although it has never been explained to the House why the BZW recommendations have been rejected.
On the other hand, my right hon. Friend qualified that commitment by reference to "market circumstances", and what the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy said in Committee represents further confirmation of that ambiguity.
4.15 pm
For example, on 23 March, the Under-Secretary said that a "unitary sale" was possibly "achievable", but then told the Committee:
we cannot be certain that that is the best way forward."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 March 1995; c. 16–17.]
In the light of that comment, what price the Minister of State's remark on Second Reading about the Government's preference for a "single, integrated whole"?
The truth is that the Government have allowed a major question mark to form over the future structure of AEA Technology at the time of privatisation, which means that the House has none of the assurances about structure that it had at the time of earlier privatisations.

Mr. Andrew Miller: In view of the hon. Gentleman's detailed knowledge of such matters relating to his constituency, does he know anything about the disposal of the facility services division? I understand that that consisted of 950 people, yet it seems to have mysteriously disappeared during the Committee stage.

Mr. Jackson: That was simply an exercise, which would have been perfectly possible under the existing arrangements, whereby the Atomic Energy Authority is contracting out the provision of facility services. It is a matter for the management of AEA Technology. I happen to support what is being done in that instance, and it affects neither the structure of the Bill nor the point that I seek to make about the future structure of AEA Technology at the point of privatisation.
I am saying that the Government have allowed a question mark to form over the issue, so that the House does not have the assurances about the structure of AEAT that it had about the structure of other organisations at the time of earlier privatisations. It is therefore appropriate to vary the standard-

form privatisation provisions—which are not carved on tablets of stone—to make possible the parliamentary debate and vote envisaged by my amendment.
I shall not repeat any of the eight arguments that I advanced on Second Reading on 14 March—they are recorded at columns 732–33 of the Official Report of that debate—as to why it is not only in the interests of my constituents who work at AEA Technology but in the national interest that AEAT should be privatised as a single entity. It would seem from the remarks of the Minister of State that he at least has found those arguments persuasive.
The purpose of my amendment is simply to give the Government an opportunity, in presenting a broad scheme of privatisation, either to say that they accept those arguments or to provide an explanation of why, in view of possible future "market circumstances", they have not been found valid. I believe that the Government have a duty to do that. AEA Technology is not the Government's property but public property. The Government have a duty to the House and to another place to explain and justify their policy in such an important matter.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I say now that I shall certainly press the amendment to a Division unless the Government are prepared to accept it. I may well lose the vote, but I hope that the proceedings will be noticed in another place.
The Government sometimes behave as though they regarded the House, its Standing Committees and its elected Members as a dignified rather than a working part of the constitution. The record suggests that their unelected Lordships are not only more dignified but can also be more effective than we in this House are allowed to be. I hope that, on this occasion, it will not once again fall to them to ensure that the Government are held to account for their actions.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support the purpose of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and I shall adopt his reasoning. I need not retract a word of it, nor need I add much.
I believe that the whole House has recognised that if AEA Technology is to be privatised, it is proper, and in the national interest, that it should be privatised as an integral whole, with the advantages of synergy arising from the different operations carried out by the company at present. The Government themselves, in the person of the Minister of State, have said that that is their preference. Doubt was cast upon that by the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy, who has said that it may be neither possible nor desirable in the commercial circumstances to proceed in the manner that the Minister of State thought appropriate.
That being so, it would be totally wrong for the House to agree to the passage of a provision which would allow the Government to do what they like by way of a scheme or schemes without any proper parliamentary scrutiny of the structure that the Government have in mind. In other contexts, such sweeping powers have been referred to as Henry VIII clauses. The other place has drawn attention to the undesirability of such dispensing powers being given to Ministers to do as they choose on the back of a general provision of law.
The case for integral privatisation is clear, and has been voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It need not he repeated. The amendment tabled by the hon.


Member for Wantage is strongly supported by his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who spoke in Committee on a number of matters affecting the interests of the industry. The arguments have commended themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it would be extremely foolish of the Minister to ignore the collective wisdom of the House of Commons on the matter. I hope that he will not do so, and that he will tell the House that the Government intend to accept the amendment.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) for reasons of tactics. We are sent here as Back-Bench Members to look after the interests of our constituents, but it is appalling that the Whips are able to organise matters in such a way that proper argument cannot be made in Committee. You will well know, Madam Speaker, as the great guardian of Back Benchers' rights, how matters must be organised in such a way as to try to allow the Government to get their business.
It might be helpful for the House to know that when the Bill was going into Committee, both my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage and I—as the Members representing the majority of people who would be affected by the privatisation—spoke individually to the Whips. We acknowledged that, with a small Government majority, it would perhaps be unreasonable to expect that both of us should sit on the Committee, as we would both be in a position to push our own individual constituency views against the majority view of the House.
I said to the Whips that, while I was keen to serve on the Committee, clearly my hon. Friend—having the larger number of constituents involved and more questions about the Bill—would be more suitable for selection. The Whips smiled, said that that was a good idea and thanked me kindly. Imagine my surprise when I found out that my hon. Friend had not been selected for the Committee. When he got another member of the Committee to stand aside in his favour, he found that the Whips rapidly ensured that he did not get on to that Committee.
When I vote against the Government tonight—for the first time—to support my colleague, it will be to say that the House must be allowed to discuss matters that are of great concern to individual constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage is no maverick and would have discussed the matters sensibly in Committee, which would have been that much stronger for having the benefit of his knowledge.
I shall support my hon. Friend if the Minister does not accept the amendment. The Minister, along with many of his ministerial colleagues, may well scratch his head and wonder why the Whips should use those tactics to try to keep trouble at bay and to deliver the vote without getting the very best deal and making sure that we look at the legislation properly. I regret to have to say that I shall vote against the Government if they do not accept the amendment.

Mr. Miller: I shall add briefly to the comments that have already been made.
In my intervention on the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), I asked about one subsidiary. I understand his logic in saying that it is not within the science base, so it can be hived off without damage to the important science base in the heart of his constituency, although I do not agree.
My worry is that there are consistent and persistent rumours about the sale of other subsidiaries. Harwell Dosimeters has been sold to EMS Medical Group Ltd. of Stonehouse, Gloucestershire for an undisclosed sum and seven business areas have been identified for sale—Conforma in Risley, Cheshire, which is close to my home and my constituency, is among them. I am worried that, with that gradual fragmentation, there will be cracks in the strength of the science base of the operation.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about that one subsidiary, but it cannot hold true for all the parts about which there are persistent rumours. It is time that the Government came clean about what they are doing.

Dr. Moonie: I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and amendment No. 10, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends.
When I realised that the hon. Member for Wantage was going to table the amendment, I made it clear that the Opposition parties would be very likely to support it. I am pleased that he is determined to push his amendment to a vote because we shall certainly be in the Lobby with him. One always gets wild notions when a Government rebellion is on the cards, but alas it is a very small rebellion—only two Conservative Members are present, but we can always hope that others may be lurking in the wings, waiting to come into the Lobby with us.
I wondered why the Report stage had been brought forward to this week—a week that is traditionally very light because of the local elections—especially as the Government must have had adequate notice that they would have a rebellion on their hands. I then realised, however, that Conservative Members would not be in their constituencies to help local government candidates. They would all be here, giving them the best service that they could possibly give in the circumstances—by not appearing in their constituencies—with the honourable exception of the hon. Members for Wantage and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), of course.
Amendment No. 1 states:
No direction under subsection (1) above shall be given unless a draft of such a direction has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by members of each House.
There is an important distinction between the form of this amendment and the amendments that we discussed in Committee. This amendment is much superior.
In Committee, we were considering securing parliamentary approval for any disposal scheme that the Government produced for AEA Technology. The Minister was able to say that such approval would be difficult, that information might be commercially sensitive and that time pressures would be placed on us, which would preclude any such resolution of the House being sought. Perhaps there is justification for that view, but the Minister has no justification for refusing to give the very reasonable assurances that his hon. Friends have requested this afternoon.
Amendment No. 1 says:
No direction … shall be given unless a draft of such a direction has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and
so approved. That consideration by both Houses of Parliament therefore takes place much earlier, which gives Members of the House a chance to put the seal of approval on that deal.
An important point of principle is at stake, which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is fundamentally wrong of the Government to take into the hands of the Executive powers that should legitimately be left in hon. Members' hands. They are entitled to make such decisions.
4.30 pm
We are currently in the disgraceful position in which our entire atomic energy generating capacity, with the exception of Magnox reactors, can be sold off without further reference to the House of Commons. Regardless of who is in power, that abuse of the Executive's prerogative is wrong and should be resisted. One hopes that it will be resisted by hon. Members on both sides of the House today.
Amendment No. 10 says:
The Secretary of State shall not direct the Authority to make more than one scheme unless such a direction in his opinion will promote the national interest.
A great deal of anxiety was expressed in Committee and on Second Reading about the form that a putative sale would take. It is obvious that the management and work force of AEA Technology would much prefer the company to be sold off as a going concern—a single entity. As we discussed the matter in Committee, we must consider it in a slightly different form on Report; hence the wording of our amendment No. 10, which would allow the Secretary of State to draw up more than one scheme of transfer only if he believed that to be in "the national interest".
There appears to have been confusion in Ministers' minds about the way in which the AEA should be sold. On Second Reading, the Minister for Industry and Energy said:
the Government agree that AEA Technology should continue to be managed as a single, integrated whole".—[Official Report, 14 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 707.]
That is great; none of us could find fault with that.
However, in Committee, there were signs of rapid back-pedalling by the new Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy, who contradicted his senior colleague, saying that it is far too early to make irrevocable decisions about the shape and form of a privatised AEA Technology. One hopes that today the Minister will clear up the obvious problems that have arisen between him and his colleague.
Parliament should decide the form of the sale. Separate sales might well be the only way of disposing of AEA Technology, but if so, those sales should be made only when they are demonstrably in the national interest.
The Minister may intend to tell us that it is impossible to define what is in the national interest. However, the Government have already made a perfectly adequate stab at defining what is in the national interest in the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981. We shall refer to that definition in a future debate, because one of our amendments restores that power, which the Government have deleted in clause 7 so that national interest may not apply.
Section 1(4) of the 1981 Act provides:
Where a disposal by the Authority would not in their opinion be consistent with the exercise or performance of their functions, the disposal may only be made—

(a) if in the Secretary of State's opinion it will promote the national interest; and
(b) under and in accordance with directions given by him under the said section 3."

Subsection (5) provides:
Where a disposal by the Secretary of State would in his opinion be inconsistent with promoting or controlling the development of atomic energy, the disposal may only be made if in his opinion it will promote the national interest.
So that has already been part of an Act. In case there might be any dubiety, or problems with future studies of the Act, a helpful footnote was provided, which said exactly what the national interest was:
National interest. It was suggested by Mackinnon J. in Consett Iron Co Ltd v. Clavering Trustees (1934) … that 'national interest' may be considered as something which is to be distinguished from the private interest of individuals; that the expression is akin to the economic doctrine of 'the greatest good of the greatest number'.
We appear to be widening things substantially, Madam Speaker. It is not my fault that the Government have chosen to delete those powers in that Act.
It is submitted that the expression is synonymous with 'public benefit'
and that
'public benefit' must involve a direct benefit.
It continues:
The question whether a particular thing is in the national interest is a question of the times and is a question of fact… It is to be decided in the light of all the circumstances and conditions as they exist at the present time notwithstanding that they would probably not have been specifically envisaged by the legislature when this Act was passed".
There are adequate precedents for considering the national interest in any disposal. The Labour party contends that it would be commercially detrimental to AEA Technology to split up the company and that it would ultimately cause problems for our country by reducing the volume of research that takes place in that very important area.
AEA Technology is a successful company. Whether it is in the public or the private sector, it must be encouraged and allowed to remain a successful company. Through our amendment, we give the Government a chance to ensure that their actions are in the national interest by retaining that provision within the Bill.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I shall make a few comments in support of amendment Nos. 1 and 10. I echo the comments of the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), about why the Atomic Energy Authority, if it is to be privatised, should be retained intact. I was a member of the Standing Committee that examined the Electricity Bill in 1989. The intention of that legislation was to privatise the nuclear industry, but one can see why the company would operate much more effectively and efficiently as one entity rather than being split into parts.
I was interested to hear the hon. Members for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) say that they had been excluded from serving on the Committee by the Whips. I ask the Minister to address that point. I have known both hon. Gentlemen across the Floor of the House over the years. As well as having a constituency interest, the hon. Member for South Dorset has terrific


expertise in the area of nuclear energy. The hon. Member for Wantage was a Science Minister. The expertise of both hon. Gentlemen could have been put to good use by the Committee. It is a sad day for democracy and for the quality of debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the Whips Office intervenes in such matters. I ask the Minister to address that point in his remarks.

Mr. Page: I fully appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) in this matter. I can also understand his views, as I understand those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). I assure them both—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage—that, while they were not physically present during the Committee's consideration of the Bill, they were there in spirit. My hon. Friends' views were very much in my mind when I made the appropriate comments in Committee.
I would like to adjust, through a little shading, the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage made about the BZW report. BZW did not recommend breaking up the company, but it said that that option should be considered. I believe that any responsible consultancy firm should consider all the options and not close any automatically without giving them some thought.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) tried to make a mystery out of standard commercial practice and activities by implying that somehow the disposals were going ahead according to a peculiar and unknown game plan. AEA management made it perfectly clear all along that, privatised or not, the business would be rationalised and that it should focus on core activities. It does not help if the company operates through a series of fragmented activities—interesting as they may be.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his enthusiasm, I shall give way in a moment. The House may be interested to know that one employee performs the task of book drying. That is a very important and a necessary skill, but it is hardly the basis upon which to build an international business.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister, first, for recognising my enthusiasm and, secondly, for giving way. Will the Minister define the core business of the enterprise? He was unable to do that in Committee and he has just disposed of a small task because he says that it is not a part of the company's core business. Is not the design of hip joints core business? How can the Minister define the core business in a science enterprise?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an unreconstructed member of the Labour party. When will the Labour party learn that it cannot run businesses better than people who have dedicated their lives to particular skills and techniques? Although the hon. Gentleman might like to dictate to the management of the new company of AEA Technology what it should or should not do, we believe that its skills and management should

be given the opportunity to prove themselves in the international marketplace. We shall certainly not try to tell AEA Technology what it can and cannot do.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I take it from what my hon. Friend says that it is now clear that the Government will no longer give instructions to AEA management as to the disposal policy.

Mr. Page: AEA Technology is still part of Government schemes, but decisions as to what is to be privatised and what is to be disposed of are a matter for the management of AEA Technology. As to the form in which it will enter the private sector, we shall be looking to the management of AEA Technology to lead the way and provide guidance on the way ahead.

Mr. Adam Ingram: As a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, will the hon. Gentleman extend that argument and tell us what the Department has in mind in respect of the privatisation of the nuclear industry generally? The management of Scottish Nuclear Ltd., which has shown expertise in bringing down unit costs and making the company productive, is opposed to the merger with Nuclear Electric. Will the Government listen to the management in those circumstances?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before the Minister answers any questions, let me make it clear that the Bill is specific and that we should remain within the confines of the Bill.

Mr. Page: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall abide by what you say, but I was not about to be tempted by the hon. Gentleman's inducements. If he is a little patient, all will be revealed in due course, and will no doubt be a tremendous boost and advancement for the nuclear industry in Britain.
I return to the amendments. Their effect would be to prevent the Secretary of State from directing the authority to make a transfer scheme unless that direction had been approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament. They would also prevent him from directing the authority to make more than one scheme unless, in his opinion, that would promote the national interest.
I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage for his constituents and for the future of AEA Technology as a business. I also understand the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members in support of the amendments. However, I must also have concern for the interests of the taxpayer in securing better value for the sale of AEA Technology, not just in the narrow sense of seeking and getting the best available price, but in terms of privatising the business on the basis that best enables it to exploit the opportunities that are open to it and maximise its contribution to the national economy.
Therefore, my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I cannot accept the amendments because I do not believe them to be consistent with that wider public interest or in the best interests of AEA Technology and its staff.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister seems to be making a perfectly extraordinary proposition that the House of Commons, in reaching a decision on the deliberations on the scheme prepared by the Government, is not capable


of taking into account exactly the same considerations that Ministers will have to examine. Why should he consider that the House cannot bear in mind what is in the commercial interest of the organisation and what is in the national interest?

Mr. Page: I was on exactly that point and I shall explain.
First, it is entirely possible and normal that a transfer scheme would not be made until the point of sale. In such circumstances, the direction to the authority to draft a transfer scheme would of necessity be extremely detailed and might well include the name of and information relating to the proposed purchaser or purchasers.
There is a real danger that potential purchasers—whether they are financial institutions backing a sale to management and employees or trade purchasers—would be deterred from bidding if they knew that their bids would be subject to close parliamentary scrutiny even before the formal preparation of any sale had started. Even if bidders were not deterred, it might be possible to explain a preference for one bidder over another only by revealing information that the bidder might not be prepared to disclose for good commercial reasons. Equally, it might not be in the interests of the taxpayer to disclose details of competing bids as that may cause the lead bidder to reduce the value of his offer or back out of the purchase.

Dr. Moonie: The Minister appears to have failed to understand exactly what the amendment means. The whole point is for the Atomic Energy Authority to examine all the possibilities, and when it has decided its line of approach to the sell-off, and only that, to seek the approval of Parliament. It is nonsense to suggest that that would inhibit it in any way.
The Minister of State said on Second Reading that he would prefer the authority to be sold off as one organisation. Every observer has expressed a preference for the organisation to be sold to the management and work force. If that option turns out to be possible, there is no question but that it is the preferable option for sale and it could easily be subjected to scrutiny by the House. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Page: We cantered over those subjects in Committee and nothing much has changed today.
I return to the point that I was making. In addition, the amendment would inevitably delay the sale process and that in itself could cause a sale to fall through or reduce proceeds.
In respect of amendment No. 10, I am hurt by the implication that the Secretary of State would contemplate acting in anything other than the national interest. I am also somewhat puzzled that Opposition Members should imply by the amendment that they would be content for the Secretary of State to act against the national interest so long as he made only one scheme.
I assure the House that, when we consider the future of AEA Technology, all the Government's decisions will be driven by their concern to promote the national interest,

to ensure that particular needs and requirements of Government customers are met and to maximise AEA Technology's contribution to the national economy.

Dr. Moonie: If the Government intend to act in the national interest, why are they withdrawing the national interest provisions in the Bill?

Mr. Page: We are looking at the national interest as regards the definition that I gave at the beginning of the debate. We are aiming to achieve not only the best price, but the best future for AEA Technology. The name of the game is to combine those two objectives harmoniously.
Let me refer briefly to the form of privatisation. Much has been made of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy told the House on Second Reading. He made a powerful speech and I support what he said, but there is no ambiguity in what is happening. He did not say that there would be only one method of privatisation. In respect of the form and method of privatisation, he told the House that we attach a great deal of importance to the views of AEA Technology's management and staff. They know the business and their commitment is crucial to realising its full potential. They have made it clear that the best way forward for AEA Technology is for it to be privatised as a single whole.
I have taken note of the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage and others. It is a desire with which I fully sympathise—to see the business kept together.
The Government have already made it clear that for the time being AEA Technology will continue to be managed as a single, integrated whole, focused on the goal of building an increasingly competitive and successful international business. On the assumption that the Bill reaches Third Reading, I will mention some of the successes that AEA Technology has already enjoyed. A sale in that form may be the way of achieving our objectives and ensuring successful privatisation. Realistically, it is probably the only basis on which the business can be offered in the medium term, given the inevitable dislocation and uncertainty that a break-up would involve. However, I cannot say now—I cannot say definitely—that it will be sold as a single whole or that the sale will take any particular form. Those matters must depend on AEA Technology's performance over the next few months, the requirements of customers and market confirmation that a unitary sale would secure best overall value for money for the taxpayer.
In the light of my remarks, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage will withdraw his amendment and that Opposition Members will not press theirs.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 266.

Division No. 142]
[4.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Alton, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Armstrong, Hilary
Bell, Stuart


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Austin-Walker, John
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry
Bray, Dr Jeremy






Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hoey, Kate


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Burden, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Caborn, Richard
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Callaghan, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hutton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Illsley, Eric


Cam, Jamie
Ingram, Adam


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Church, Judith
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Janner, Greville


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Connarty, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Keen, Alan


Corston, Jean
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cox, Tom
Khabra, Piara S


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davidson, Ian
McAllion, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Denham, John
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Donohoe, Brian H
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maclennan, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Enright, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Etherington, Bill
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Rynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maxton, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meacher, Michael


Foulkes, George
Meale, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Michael, Alun


Galbraith, Sam
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galloway, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gapes, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Garrett, John
Miller, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
Mitchell, Austin (Great Grimsby)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godman, Dr Norman A
Morley, Elliot


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Graham, Thomas
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
Olner, Bill


Hanson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Harman, Ms Harriet
Patchett, Terry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pearson, Ian


Henderson, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Heppell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pike, Peter L





Pope, Greg
Steinberg, Gerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Purchase, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Straw, Jack


Randall, Stuart
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reid, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dennis


Rogers, Allan
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rooney, Terry
Wallace, James


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Watson, Mike


Rowlands, Ted
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Audrey


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Worthington, Tony


Short, Clare
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Uew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Peter Mandelson and


Spellar, John
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Alexander, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coe, Sebastian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Congdon, David


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cran, James


Atkins, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Devlin, Tim


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Duncan, Alan


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Sir Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butcher, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Fry, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Gallie, Phil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Chapman, Sydney
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward






Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charies
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorst, Sir John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'sf'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Temple-Morris, Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter





Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Whittingdale, John


Tracey, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waterson, Nigel



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2

SUCCESSOR COMPANIES

Dr. Moonie: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 16, line 7, at end insert—
'(7) The Secretary of State shall seek to ensure that any disposal of securities issued to him under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be in such a manner as to prevent more than one half of those securities passing to any person or persons who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are wholly based outside the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 12, in page 16, line 7, at end insert—
'(7) The Secretary of State shall not dispose of more than one half of the securities issued to him under sub-paragraph (1) above until a period of three years has elapsed from the date of their initial allotment.'.
No. 13, in clause 7, page 4, leave out lines 11 to 16.
No. 14, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
'(3) The Authority shall not dispose of more than one half of the securities issued to it under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act until a period of three years has elapsed from the date of their initial allotment.'.
No. 15, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
'(3) The Authority shall seek to ensure that any disposal of securities issued to it under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act shall be in such a manner as to prevent more than one half of those securities passing to any person or persons who, in the opinion of the Authority, are wholly based outside the United Kingdom.'.

Dr. Moonie: Amendment No. 13 returns to a principle that we have already discussed: an insistence that the national interest remain a consideration before any disposal. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are consequential.
The amendments have three purposes. Nos. 12 and 14 provide in effect for golden shares, time-limited to the first three years of operation of any new company. The idea of an indefinite 50 per cent. shareholding by the Government was tabled in Committee and discussed at great length, but in the debate the Minister offered no opinion on the merit of that idea and concentrated on another amendment. We did not get the opportunity to discuss the golden share properly—hence our attempt to redress the balance this afternoon.
A provision such as this would help to secure the best deal for the work force and management who may wish to be involved in a buy-out. Golden share provisions have been included in a number of other privatisations carried out by the Government, so there is nothing particularly contentious in what we are trying to do. I say that this would


be in the interests of a management-workers buy-out because, if the Government retained 50 per cent. of the value of the company, the management and work force would not have to put up the full capital sum to purchase the company in the first instance. The extra three years that we are allowing would give them a bit more time to raise the capital that they might need to complete their purchase of AEA Technology from the Atomic Energy Authority.
I suggest that it would be well worth the Government's considering this motion. They must, like us, be interested in securing the best deal. To ensure that the morale of management and staff remains high, it is greatly in the Government's interest that the management and work force should be successful in any attempt at a buy-out. The golden share provision will also ensure that any predator company will be prevented from taking over AEA Technology, at least in the early stages of its life in the private sector. That will ensure that it has the best chance of surviving once it is moved to the private sector.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 15, on the other hand, would prevent the sale of the Atomic Energy Authority to companies or other bodies based outside the United Kingdom. The Opposition fervently believe that there are still considerable questions of national interest relating to the work of the AEA that are being overlooked by the Government in the present scheme. We seek some reassurances that the Government are aware that the national interest is involved and that they intend to ensure that it is properly managed and taken into account in any sale.
It is worth noting that the AEA has recently divested itself, outside the provisions of the Bill, of its facilities services division, which employs no fewer than 950 staff, to Procord Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson Controls Inc., of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
I have already discussed the national interest clause. I do not propose to speak any longer on amendment No. 13 but I trust that the Government will provide us with some assurances on the amendments and I hope that we will not have to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Page: The amendments attempt to restrict the freedom of the Secretary of State and the authority to dispose of securities in AEA Technology after vesting. I would like to explain what I consider to be one or two of the practical effects of the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 raise the substantive issue of foreign ownership. I will deal with that in a moment, but let me deal first with the much less substantive amendments, Nos. 12, 13 and 14. They seek to restrict the sale of securities in successor companies to less than 50 per cent. within three years of vesting. Their purpose is transparent and doomed to disappointment.
Opposition Members tabled an amendment in Committee with the aim of delaying privatisation. That amendment attempted to hold up the proceedings for 12 months. I remember teasing the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) that he was seeking to make the privatisation of AEA Technology part of an integrated Labour party policy. He assured me, no doubt in jest, that had he sought to delay the sale until a Labour Government were elected, he would have erred on the safe side and made it two years rather than one. I see that his confidence is starting to ebb away and that he now seeks to delay the sale by some three years, to be absolutely certain, as he thinks. That is not going to be long enough for him to succeed in his purpose.
Amendment No. 13 attempts to restrict the freedom of the Secretary of State and the authority to dispose of securities in a successor company by deleting clause 7(1). That clause expressly disapplies certain conditions of the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981 in relation to the sale of shares in any successor company. It also prohibits the authority from disposing of any securities in a successor company except with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. It is purely an avoidance of doubt provision and its removal would not serve any useful purpose.

Dr. Moonie: Is the Minister embarrassed to say that the content of that clause is the national interest provision; if not, would he like to put it on record that it is the Government's intention with this provision to delete national interest from the Bill?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman did not act in such a crude and unsubtle fashion during all the time we were in Committee. He had a gentleness that commended itself to me, but the sort of approach that he adopts today will not obtain the response for which he hopes. Obviously, in everything that the Government do, the national interest must be there. I believe that the word is "paramount".
Clause 7(1) is necessary because, if not expressly disapplied, it is possible that the restrictions in the 1981 Act will be viewed as limiting the powers of sale under the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 15 are an attempt to prevent foreign ownership or control of AEA Technology. There is nothing between us on that. We have made it perfectly clear that the Government will act in the national interest in making decisions about the form and method of any privatisation.
I recognise the concerns that have led to the amendments being tabled. We all agree that AEA Technology is a valuable and important national asset and that, in deciding its future, we must aim to maximise its returns to the United Kingdom.
Let me set out two general points in responding to the amendments. First, the Government welcome overseas investment. If Opposition Members would care to come to hear me winding up the debate tomorrow night, they will hear me say how much we appreciate the huge investments that have been made in this country by companies that have provided jobs, exports and, I think, a valuable injection of new ideas and technology. However, that is for tomorrow night and, having given that trailer of what is to come, I am sure that hon. Members will not be going canvassing for the local elections in their constituencies but will stay here to contribute to that important debate.
Although we welcome such investment, potential buyers of privatised companies, or shareholders in them, must meet all the criteria that are attached to sales. There is no reason why they should be discouraged simply on the ground of nationality.
Secondly, the scope for restrictions and controls is strictly limited by European Union rules and other international obligations.
In the case of AEA Technology, as I have already said, the Government's thinking is driven by our concern to ensure that the particular needs of Government customers are met and to maximise AEA Technology's contribution to the national economy.
The House can rest assured that all appropriate action to that end will be taken. A special share would be a possible line of approach, but I shall not speculate on that any further at present. It would be wrong to restrict ourselves in the way that the amendments seek. Statutory limitation as to when and to whom a successor company might or might not be sold would not be in the best interests of the taxpayer or the business.
I ask the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the judicial decision of the House of Lords on interpretation of ambiguities by reference to Ministers' speeches, I think that it would be helpful to know whether the Minister is saying that, although the Government are deleting the words that deal with national interest, he believes that those words will still be imported into the construction of the Bill. If it is simply a tidying-up operation to the effect that it is no longer necessary to import the language that was used in the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981 because it is implicit, it will avoid a great deal of doubt and be very helpful.
However, I suspect that the Minister is really saying that the Government's action is quite deliberate. He is taking the provision out because a Government decision that is not put before the House in a form that hon. Members might have an opportunity to consider will not be so readily challenged by judicial review if he has taken the words out. I think that that is a most unattractive and sinister development, especially as it has not been made explicit. It has been implied that nothing is changing. The reality is that significant change in the law is being imported into the Bill. That is a very powerful reason for suspecting that the Government are up to no good.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Clause 7 is a result of the hurried and unthinking way in which the Government have introduced the Bill. It is widely understood that the value of AEA Technology is based on its intellectual capital. The questions of securities within the company and of ownership should have been dealt with comprehensively and in a way that ensured that the ownership and direction of the company were wholly in the interests of the United Kingdom. The possibility of the company offering services overseas is another matter. Its control, its central direction and its understanding of its task should have been implicit in the Bill.
In Committee, I mentioned the possibility of a hybrid formation for the company which would ensure that it remained wholly and properly controlled within this country so that it could carry out the purposes for which it was set up in the first place and its increasingly important role of supervising the disposal of waste and the decommissioning of plant. I suggested that a hybrid formation might be an appropriate way to proceed. Such a hybrid should be based on the company's shares being wholly in the hands of the people who work in the company. I also suggested that there should be a form of

supervisory board whose clear duty would be to ensure that at all times, the national interest was protected and served by the new company. Such a hybrid would meet all the concerns expressed by Conservative Members.
The Minister has said that he shares our concerns and that he believes that the national interest will be protected because the Government always act in the interests of this country. That is fine. We will not dwell on the Government's record and their understanding of what is in the national interest. That is a debate for another time which you would not welcome now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If we had a hybrid formation in which the company was owned by the people who worked in it, it would be a recognition that the value of the company was almost wholly based on the intellectual capital in it and on the ability of the workers to deliver the service that was wanted. Such a formation would ensure, through the supervisory board mechanism, that the company always acted in the interests of the nation and that it served the nation as was originally intended.
In the disposal of the company, it should have been implicit that it could be disposed of only with the encumbrance of a supervisory board with the duties that I have described. In that way, we could, in perpetuity, have ensured some consensus between the two parties. As it is, we know that the privatisation of the company is being used as nothing more than a substitute for the fact that the Government were unable to introduce a Bill to privatise the Post Office. As a result, this Bill has been hurried and it will not serve us as it should do. At the very least, the Government should consider our amendments.

Dr. Moonie: Let me get this clear. The Minister is not prepared to accept our amendments on retention of a certain proportion of ownership, but he is sympathetic towards the idea that the Government should prevent disposal in the wrong way. I suppose that one has to accept the Minister's good will, so I shall try to do so. He is not prepared to introduce a provision to prevent foreign ownership of the company, but he is prepared to say that the Government would consider the prevention of such ownership. He is certainly not prepared to own up to the fact that the Government intend to delete the provision on national interest. He is quite prepared to talk about clause 7, but he has not said exactly what is being deleted—the national interest as a condition of sale. Nor is he prepared to justify the deletion, because he knows only too well that there is no justification.
It may be more appropriate to attempt to amend the Bill in another place, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 6, in page 17, line 7, leave out from second 'the' to 'in' in line 8 and insert
'statements of account prepared by the Authority under section 4(3) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954'.
No. 7, in page 18, line 2, after 'accounting', insert 'reference'.
No. 8, in page 18, line 25, leave out from 'be)' to first 'the' in line 27 and insert
'amount determined by or under the transfer scheme or (if there is no such determination)'.
No. 9, in page 18, line 28, leave out from first 'the' to 'in' and insert
'statements of account prepared by the Authority under section 4(3) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954'.—[Mr. Page.]

Schedule 4

PENSIONS

Dr. Moonie: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 30, line 22, after 'transfer scheme', insert
'or other transfer of an undertaking'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 19, in page 30, line 50, after 'transfer scheme', insert
'or transfer of an undertaking'.
No. 20, in page 31, line 13, after 'transfer schemes', insert 'or transfers of undertakings'.
No. 21, in page 31, line 13, at end insert—
'(7) This paragraph shall have effect for transfers of undertakings other than by transfer scheme, that occur on or after I March 1995.'.

Dr. Moonie: We now come to the first of two groups of amendments on the pension rights of employees within AEA Technology. In fact, the first group of amendments concerns employees who are no longer employees of AEA Technology. The amendments would allow some rights of pension transfer for people in other parts of AEA that have already been sold off, in particular the services division. While we were debating the Bill in Committee, the services division was sold off to Procord without the employees being given the pension guarantees included in the Bill for the scientific employees of AEA Technology.
We should be clear what the distinction means. The largely manual work force who make up the facilities services division—the support services—have been sold off into the private sector without the pension guarantees given to the professional and scientific staff who will largely be involved in selling off AEA Technology. I consider that the distinction is disgraceful. Amendment No. 16 would restore—it is retrospective—to members of the facilities services division and others the rights that have been given to the employees of AEA Technology.

Mr. Maclennan: I support the amendment. I have a substantial number of constituents at Dounreay, employed formerly by the facilities services division, but now by Procord. It is extremely unsatisfactory that their pension rights were not preserved by the Government when the transfer was made by UKAEA. If it is necessary to legislate for this purpose, it is open to the Government to do so through the Bill. I hope that they will remedy the defect even now. It is not satisfactory to make such changes without due and proper consultation and consideration of those affected. Those who have been consulted about the transfer of responsibilities have expressed, from the beginning, the strongest opposition to what is proposed. Their complaints are entirely justified and I hope that Parliament will now remedy the wrong that has been done to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Miller: I worry when that mistake is made from time to time.

Mr. Timothy Wood (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): So you should.

Mr. Miller: I understand the hon. Gentleman's words.
The amendments would give equal pension rights to employees who are divested, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has just explained.

He has already cited examples to explain why there should be an element of retrospection. In Committee, some reference was made to the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981. At that time, in the context of the disposal of Harwell—I mean Amersham International; I am not trying to give the Minister ideas—the Government said that they accepted that the employees of Radiochemical Centre Ltd. should remain in the Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme. We were told in Committee—repeatedly—that that was the point at which the Government changed their position, and all subsequent privatisations were dealt with in the way that is before us today.
I wonder whether the Minister has accidentally misled us, because there is a contradiction. In Committee, during the consideration of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), when pressed on the question of pensions in that particular case, said:
The amendments relate to guaranteed terms and conditions … including redundancy and pension provisions, and to the payment of redundancy money on transfer to the contractor. I have already given repeated assurances during the passage of the Bill that arrangements will be set up that provide benefits at least as good as those that staff presently enjoy."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 February 1991; c. 216.]
5.30 pm
Let us assume that the word "staff' could mean singular or plural. On 24 April 1991, the Minister was very specific. He said:
No one will be made to suffer detriment to their pension arrangements as a result of contractorisation."—[Official Report, 24 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 1108.]
What we have here, as I tried to illustrate in Committee, is an exercise that can potentially, and will actuarily, present disadvantage to some individuals.
The Minister was gracious enough, at the end of the Committee's sittings, to comment on people who were terminally ill, and I am grateful for that, but there are still answers that must be given. I am even more concerned when I look at our exchanges in relation to the Government Actuary. On 27 March this year, the Government Actuary's Department, in a letter to the central staff side, made it clear that
Comparability assessments have been commissioned in the context of a compulsory transfer of employment requiring a specific group of employees to cease to be members of the UKAEA Schemes, but providing them with the opportunity to join their new employer's scheme.
Again, there is a contradiction. In Committee, the Minister repeatedly stressed the independence of the Government Actuary. On 4 April this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy said:
The role of the GAD is crucial. It has a well-proven record of independence and it will decide whether there is a fair balance of benefit.
Later, in response to a question that I raised, he said:
The definitions are from the Government Actuary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 April 1995; c. 123–24.]
It seems to me that the independence of the GAD is being put in jeopardy, because it is clear from the text of the letter to which I have referred that the GAD was asked to act under specific circumstances, to provide a briefing for the Government under the terms that they have dictated as being the best mechanism for the disposal of this particular


business. It was not asked to examine and compare the benefits to the individuals or the collective population in the context of the various ways in which the pension scheme could be dealt with. The text of the letter is quite specific. The GAD was not even asked to look at the option of the benefit to individual employees if the earlier options that were available in 1981 were brought into play.
It seems to me that we clearly have evidence of interference by the Treasury in the manipulation of the pension arrangements around the point of sale. There is no clear logical basis in pension terms for the way in which the Government have reached their conclusions. Labour Members are seeking to make the best of a bad job by building in some protection in the amendments for the people who have already been disposed of, so to speak, in the context of the subsidiary to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy referred, and to build in the maximum protection within the disappointingly limited framework that the Government have provided us.

Mr. Page: As the House knows, the Bill is primarily designed to permit the privatisation of AEA Technology and it creates a successor company, or companies, by transfer scheme prior to the point of sale or the transfer of assets directly to the private sector.
The amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition have been presented as a model of reasonableness, but we had all of those methods in Committee. I would like to think that we dealt with them adequately, but, obviously Opposition Members have been driven by forces beyond their control to come again to the House and give it another run. I have no objection to that. I must tell the House, however, that the amendments would add a completely new dimension to the Bill by bringing within its scope any divestment, however, small, which the authority, for example, AEA Technology or the Government division, might wish to make in the normal course of business. Just to put the cap on it, the amendments would not just encompass future divestments but would go back to those that have taken place since 1 March this year.
We have to keep some form of proportion, because, with the exception of the facilities services division, the transfers involve a small number of employees. We have already had the debate on whether a company such as AEA Technology should worry about how the support systems should be run and whether that should be a separate operation. The authority has had wide experience of such transfers and existing law does provide adequate protection for employees. The amendments would mean that a panoply of provision designed for a specific purpose—the major transfer of AEA Technology—would come into play for a divestment which may, in fact, be just one employee.
Amendment No. 21 is slightly curious. I think that I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. He is trying to open the basis on which recent sales by the authority, particularly the sale of the FSD, have taken place.

Mr. Miller: The problem is that the Government are looking at the global interest. The whole structure of pensions is about how within that global picture one protects the best interests of the individual who is a member of that collective scheme. The Minister, by his own

admission, is prepared to isolate an individual. It might be that individual who needs the greatest protection from the scheme. It seems to me that the Government are standing on their heads some of the ideas that they have promoted in terms of the importance of occupational pensions.

Mr. Page: As I suspected, if the hon. Gentleman had restrained himself for a moment I would have come to that point.
Amendment No. 21 endeavours to reopen the basis of the recent sales by the authority, in particular the facilities services division. The amendment is defective, but is no less important because of that. It seeks to impose a duty to do something in relation to an event that is already taking place. Even if the amendment were not obviously defective, it would be wrong in principle. Purchasers have bought the divested operations in good faith and it would be wrong to try, retrospectively, to change the basis on which the transaction took place.
I wonder whether Opposition Members have consulted not just the unions but the employees, because I am not certain that the employees would be pleased with what they are advocating today. In the case of the facilities services division, I know that the unions, in all their circumstances, recommended the transfer to Procord to their members. The new pension schemes include some significant improvements in benefit.
I thought that hon. Members raised genuine and valid concerns in Committee and I believe that the way in which I reacted to those concerns showed that I acknowledge what was said. In Committee, we debated the death-in-service benefit and it is much better than under the authority's scheme. I have a long list—

Mr. Miller: rose—

Mr. Page: Hang on. The hon. Gentleman should not get so excited.
I have a long list of the various benefits offered by the UKAEA scheme and the scheme offered by Procord. For example, on pension benefits, the UKAEA scheme offers one eightieth for every year of service. The FSD scheme—Procord—offers one sixtieth for every year of service. There is one difference in inflation protection. Under UKAEA there is full inflation proofing and under the Procord scheme protection is guaranteed up to 5 per cent., with provision for discretionary increases beyond 5 per cent. Contribution levels depend on whether the person is industrial or non-industrial. There is a flat rate of 5.75 per cent. for Procord. Under UKAEA it is 7.5 per cent. in the case of the principal non-industrial superannuation scheme category and 5.75 per cent. in the industrial superannuation scheme category. The UKAEA staff under PNISS are talking about an extra 2 per cent. in their contribution levels. The Procord death-in-service lump sum benefit is three times the salary while the UKAEA benefit is twice the salary. Under the Procord scheme, benefits are payable to spouses or, at the discretion of the trustees, to other dependants. There is service enhancement to normal retirement age.
The general benefit is so much greater and I understand why the unions recommended full transfer.

Dr. Moonie: Just for the record, may I say that the Minister is misquoting us to some extent? We are interested in preserving choice for individuals, not for pension companies or pension schemes. We are trying to


ensure that the Bill allows an individual, not the company making up the scheme, to decide whether to stay in the old scheme or to move to the new one.

Mr. Page: I understand that, but at the moment those people in the UKAEA scheme are staying in that scheme. I do not feel that it is necessary to provide that sort of choice. When people move out of the UKAEA scheme, they move into the next scheme. I want to make it clear to the House that the scheme to which they will move is very good. The assessment of relative benefits shows that the Procord scheme is superior.
When divesting activities, including those recent examples, the authority has ensured, and will continue to ensure, that employees are able to join a pension scheme that is broadly comparable. It means that, as a whole, the mix of the benefits will have broadly the same value as in the authority's scheme. Employees will not lose out. There can be no question of there being a scheme that is not broadly comparable, otherwise employees may have grounds for constructive dismissal.
In each case, the schemes are certified by the Government Actuary as being broadly comparable. The Government Actuary is independent and I believe that his integrity is beyond question. I know that we have gone over this matter in Committee, but I believe that the Government Actuary is well recognised for his independence of thought. He reaches his conclusions only after careful consideration of all the features, including entitlement under the schemes being compared. Therefore, employees can have every confidence that their interests are being looked after. I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Dr. Moonie: Just for the record, I want to make it clear that we are not questioning the integrity of the Government Actuary's Department. We are raising some questions about competence. We are not questioning the integrity of Procord, the company that bought the facilities services division. We are questioning the competence of the decision that transferred pensioners from the AEA to Procord without leaving them the choice of remaining in the previous scheme.
I do not intend to pursue this matter to a Division and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Moonie: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 30, line 35, leave out '(taken as a whole)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 30, line 36, leave out 'other benefits' and insert
'entitlements to injury benefits and redundancy benefits'.
No. 22, in page 31, line 26, leave out '(taken as a whole)'.
No. 23, in page 31, line 27, leave out 'other benefits' and insert
'entitlements to injury benefits and redundancy benefits'.

Dr. Moonie: During the previous debate we strayed into the subjects covered by these amendments. I suppose that was inevitable. I congratulate the staff of the House and Madam Speaker on their exceptional generosity in providing us with a chance for two debates on pensions.
There was a clear division between them in my mind when I started the first debate, but it is much less clear now having concluded that debate.
The amendments deal with the comparability of the AEA pension scheme and any future pension scheme provided by a new company. At present the Bill considers comparability to include all employment benefits, not just pensions. That is not considered to be acceptable by staff trade unions. For the benefit of the Minister who appears to be hard of hearing, I shall repeat that it is not considered acceptable by staff trade unions.
In Committee it was argued that the present AEA scheme includes injury and redundancy benefits and that they could not be reproduced in any new scheme for tax reasons. Our amendments return to the issue more precisely and, I hope, avoid that problem. We are doing our best to be helpful to the Minister.
We are not questioning the integrity of anybody involved in this process. We are questioning the competence of the decisions that have been made and we are giving the Government a chance to make amends for what we consider to be a mistake in the Bill's drafting. It will enable them to improve the Bill to the benefit of individual employees. We are trying to achieve full choice for individual members. They should be able to choose which pension scheme is most advantageous for them, depending on their circumstances. The Government are, ostensibly, in favour of choice and I can see no reason for them to reject these amendments.

Mr. Miller: I shall be brief because I made some of my intended comments during the previous debate. The amendments seek to deal with comparability between the AEA scheme and any future scheme provided by a new company. At present, the Bill considers comparability to include all employment benefits, not just the pensions. That is not acceptable. In the Government's infamous booklet, "The Government's Guide to Market Testing", there is a peculiar clause on pensions, including injury benefits. It says:
Civil servants whose jobs transfer under TUPE cannot continue to belong to the PCSPS. Their accrued pension rights are fully protected by social security legislation and they have the option of preserving them in the PCSPS for payment at age 60 (provided they have two or more years qualifying service), or transferring them to the new employer's pension scheme or to a personal pension arrangement. In the latter two cases a transfer value will be paid by PCSPS.
The paragraph starts by referring to pensions, including industrial injury benefits, but that is then conveniently omitted. This is where we get into complications.
The Government Actuary's Department letter, to which I referred earlier, makes it clear that some individuals may be disadvantaged. That is the effect of this sort of block transfer into a scheme. The Minister set out, dare I say, a lucid argument—I might incur the wrath of my hon. Friends for saying that—as to why the services division scheme is better. He should refer to the Government Actuary's letter before he jumps to that conclusion. One of the problems with making such a comparison actuarially is that, in this life, people do not get more than they pay for, unless the Minister has invented some sort of perpetual motion machine in his visits to the AEA.
The letter says:
The purpose of the GAD assessment is to ensure that, for the group of staff who are affected, the new pension scheme offers a package which is broadly speaking no worse in value than that which they presently enjoy.


The method of measuring that value is by calculating the sum total of all the benefits. Of course, they can be up or down on the comparable figures in different schemes. The Government Actuary continues:
This is not to say that some individuals may not be better or worse off in certain circumstances but that, overall, there is no significant detriment to any identifiable individual or group of individuals within the body of staff being transferred.
Broadly speaking, the Minister is presenting an accurate picture. The problem comes back to the fact that the Government Actuary cannot give him a guarantee that no individual will be worse off.
Against that background, in any sale or transfer, whether it affects the provisions of the Bill or, indeed, the sale of one private sector company to another, protection must be brought down to the lowest common denominator: the interests of the individual. No hon. Member can predict the individual needs of people in such circumstances. If a company is sold, there needs at the very least to be a period of grace, during which people can determine whether, in their own personal interest, they should transfer into the new scheme.
That is precisely what the Government did in 1981 in relation to the Amersham sale. It made a lot of sense then. In Committee, the Minister made clear, and was right to say, that the majority of people in Amersham have transferred into the new scheme, first, because starters have no choice—they can join only the new scheme—but, secondly, because a part of the population would actuarially be advantaged by such a move at particular times in their lives. Inevitably, therefore, over time the problem that the Government perceive in presenting employees with that option will be phased out.
Sometimes, in some of the subsidiary operations of the industry under discussion, we are talking about a half life of thousands of years, but the transition from the pension position that existed in 1981 to the one that the Government seem to be satisfied with in relation to Amersham today, took a handful of years. The Government should not worry about that.
If the Government are serious when they say, as we hear from time to time, that the Conservative party is the party of choice and of freedom of the individual, let us see them act on that and revert to the provisions that existed in 1981. Such clauses would therefore not be necessary because individuals would determine whether, against all the risks that exist in their place of work, their family circumstances, and their own personal health, they could make a judgment based on the best available professional advice as to what scheme they should be in and when they should transfer. If the Government are serious about the Conservative party being a party of choice, let us see them deliver on the amendment.

Mr. Page: I start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) that the two blocks of amendments have in many ways blurred and merged, but a fairly fine line existed between the two and, if his side will, I plead guilty to merging them. The amendments continue the debate that took place in Committee. Opposition Members are trying with considerable ingenuity to tie down a new employer to provide a pension scheme that, as a minimum, provides benefits that mirror those in the authority scheme. I understand the

point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) but I cannot accept his argument or that the amendment can be translated into the Bill.
Every privatisation is different and the pension provisions have been tailored to the particular circumstances that apply. We have designed the pension provisions that we believe to be the most appropriate to this privatisation.
In the case of AEA Technology, under our proposals, employees transferring who participate in an authority scheme will be given access to another pension scheme—either a new or existing scheme—operated by their new employer. The Bill provides the protection that, taken as a whole, it must be no less favourable than the authority scheme. Employee representatives must be consulted before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the authority can be satisfied that a new scheme meets those requirements.
The new scheme must offer benefits that are at least equivalent to the authority scheme, although the benefit mix may be different. The Secretary of State or the authority would ask the Government Actuary to verify that the new scheme meets the requirements of the schedule.
I repeat what I said in Committee; the Government Actuary is impartial, has wide experience of these matters, and his opinion has been taken as authoritative on many such previous occasions. The proposed amendments would restrict the ability of the vendor to decide that a new scheme is comparable when the provisions of the scheme are taken as a whole. They would effectively require each benefit to be as good as the present one. As I have said, the new employer would be hamstrung into providing a pension scheme whose benefits, as a minimum, mirror the authority scheme. That would be unduly restrictive and could work against the interests of employees.
Let us take one example. [Interruption.] May I move on a little before the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston returns to his arguments, which he has advanced on more than one occasion? Let us take the example of a new employer whose pension scheme is superior to the authority scheme but has a different mix of benefits. One or more of those benefits, which in the overall scheme may be minor, may be less favourable than the comparable benefit in the authority scheme. Agreeing to the amendments would prevent that scheme from meeting the terms of the legislation.
When similar amendments were discussed in Committee, I noted that they may have meant that new pension schemes could not be tax exempt. I am afraid that the current amendments suffer from a similar problem. In Committee, I gave two examples of benefits that prevented the authority scheme from being tax exempt. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has reflected those in amendments Nos. 18 and 23. Removing injury and redundancy benefits would not mean that the scheme would be tax exempt. Those are only some examples of benefits in the authority scheme that would prevent schemes from attaining tax-exempt status. Employees would not thank the Labour party for preventing their pension scheme from being tax-exempt. It would mean paying tax on their own and on their employer's contributions on their lump sums. People would not thank the Opposition for preventing the overall mix of benefits from being rearranged so as to increase them.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston seemed to start from the basis that the authority schemes are the best things since sliced bread and that everything else is completely and utterly inferior. I am glad to say that there was a shift of view in Committee. Some 90 per cent. of the Amersham employees who remained in the authority's scheme have now transferred to Amersham's scheme. In that case the mix of benefit was very different from that in the authority's scheme. I shall not waste time by reading through the benefits of the Amersham scheme compared with the authority's scheme. However, if I had to make a choice of pension scheme I should choose the Amersham scheme.

6 pm

Mr. Miller: The Minister puts great store on the Government Actuary's words and accepts them as accurate. Does he accept the sentence which reads:
That is not to say that some individuals may not be better or worse off"?
Does he not realise that we are discussing the interests of individuals?

Mr. Page: I understand that; the hon. Gentleman has made the point on more than one occasion. We are debating the transfer of group schemes. At this stage I cannot say what terms an employer may wish to propose, but whatever happens the overall terms must be no less favourable. Before coming to a view about that, employees' representatives would have to be consulted and I have no doubt that at that time they would make their views well and truly known.
The Bill as it stands represents the right approach and I hope that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will withdraw his amendment.

Dr. Moonie: It is clear that we shall not manage to persuade the Minister about the merits of our case and I do not propose to go on flogging a dead horse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Page: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall start on a note of discord. I have been called many things in my life, but being called a dead horse is hurtful and wounding. I hope that when the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) responds to the debate, he will have the grace to withdraw that remark.

Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will respond to the debate. I was of course referring to the issue and not to the unfortunate Minister.

Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
We had our disagreements in Committee and in the House, but we have had a useful discussion on the substance of the Bill and have clarified many issues. I pay tribute to the Opposition's constructive attitude. By and large, they did not set out to wreck the Bill, but tabled amendments that were designed to probe the thinking behind it and procure further information about the

Government's intentions. Time will tell whether that is symptomatic of new Labour. Labour Members may have an immediate chance to test the new thinking that is sweeping through the Labour movement by not opposing Third Reading. I like to think that I have striven to encourage the process of conversion that is creeping across to the Opposition.
I have not been able to accept any Opposition amendments, but in my humble way I hope that I have provided clarification where it was necessary and given a number of assurances on key issues in the privatisation process. In particular, I have made it clear that the sale will involve only the commercial activities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The Bill specifically prohibits the transfer of nuclear site licences and freehold interests in land that is subject to such licences.
UKAEA Government division will retain ownership of the authority's nuclear sites as well as responsibility for the safe management of the authority's nuclear liabilities and nuclear facilities, such as the fuel reprocessing plants at Dounreay, which still have operational life in them. It will also retain responsibility for fusion research, for the constabulary and for the authority's other non-commercial activities. I have made it clear that when AEA Technology operates nuclear facilities or works with special nuclear material, the highest possible safety standards will apply and existing security and regulatory requirements will be maintained.
Given the recognition that the future success of AEA Technology depends on its employees—I think that the House is united on that—I have given assurances that I would be prepared to consider seriously any bids from management and employees. Whatever the form and method of sale, I shall look to achieve substantial employee participation. The profile of AEA Technology is such that without its staff, it has little future. Therefore, I want to do everything possible to encourage the staff to feel committed to making AEA Technology grow in the international marketplace.
For the same reason, I have made it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention whatever of selling employees short. Their terms and conditions and pension rights will be fully protected. I think that the Opposition and I agree about the future of AEA Technology. We want to see it grow, thrive and prosper and, more importantly, we want it to achieve its full potential and contribute to the United Kingdom economy. The only difference between us is that I still do not believe in the conversion that is allegedly taking place within the Labour party. Labour believes that such achievements can be brought about in some shape or form in the public sector. But I believe that AEA Technology can be successful only in the private sector. Its privatisation will add to Britain's international competitive position in the scientific and engineering services market and strengthen our international reputation for scientific excellence.
AEA Technology has come a long way in a remarkably short time. It is becoming more focused both in terms of what it does and in serving the specific needs of its customers. It recognises the many economic opportunities that are available to it and is organising itself to exploit them. Even in the few short weeks that have elapsed between Second Reading and today, AEA Technology has won a multi-million pound contract from British Telecom for recycling the tritium from the old trimphone dials for medical purposes such as in cancer research. It has won


contracts worth £6 million for supplying offshore services, and has won a new three-year contract worth £16 million to supply scientific services to Nirex. There will be many more such successes, but it will be able to take full advantage of the opportunities that will be open to it if it has the freedom and flexibility that I know that the private sector can supply.
Privatisation encourages efficiency and improves competitiveness. Companies flourish when they are removed from state control. They perform better and respond better to their customers. We believe that privatisation is the only way forward and that it is the best way forward for the business and the staff. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Battle: After all our deliberations in Committee and in the House, the Bill simply gives the Secretary of State outline permission to privatise AEA Technology, to do with it whatever he wants on his own terms. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) plainly spelt out, it gives him power without having to rely on a vote in the House.
Despite our questions on Second Reading and in Committee, we are still left without an answer to that great unknown question: how exactly do the Government envisage the privatisation of AEA Technology? We are left absolutely unclear about the form of the sale. The problem is that, as always, the devil is in the detail. We are entitled to ask—indeed, we insist on asking, even at this late stage—whether privatisation will be en bloc; will the authority he sold as a single entity?
I got a hint from the Minister, when he was put under pressure on Report, that the Government were changing the position and leaving the sale rather more open than was suggested on Second Reading. The Under-Secretary's instincts are that the authority should be sold as a single entity, but he then falls behind the phrase that it ought to be left to the market—the ultimate mantra of this Government; their classic refrain. We say that that is not good enough. The Government ought to play a positive role.
All the evidence suggests that it is unlikely that AEA Technology will be bought lock, stock and barrel. The only alternative is a piecemeal, stripping-out, cherry-picking exercise, during which the best bits will be sold off, leaving vital gaps in research. Current research will not be continued as a result of the Bill. In future, vital expertise and experience will be lost. The Government look to privatisation to bring in better services and lower prices. In this case, privatisation of AEA Technology will simply lead to the breaking up of a critical mass of scientific expertise, which is vital to the United Kingdom's scientific research and development and, indeed, its scientific contribution internationally.
It is important to emphasise that we are still to this day waiting for the Government's promised nuclear review. It has been promised since November 1989, when a Government statement announced a moratorium on the construction of further nuclear power stations up to 1994, when, we were told, the Government would review the situation. We are now in May 1995 and we are still

awaiting the results of that review. All that has squeaked out are the Government's intentions to privatise Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. Coincidentally, the staff of Scottish Nuclear Ltd. lobbied the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On Third Reading, the hon. Gentleman really cannot discuss matters outside the province of the Bill.

Mr. Battle: I accept your ruling of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it seems rather surprising to be discussing the privatisation of AEA Technology operations when we are waiting for a nuclear review. I simply make the point, as Labour Members have said throughout the passage of the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Life is full of surprises.

Mr. Battle: Clearly, it is the Government's intention not to put the Bill in the broader context of an energy policy, as referred to in the scientific foresight report that they commissioned into the future of energy. Even in that report, surprise was expressed at the Government ploughing ahead with privatising such operations of UKAEA.
UKAEA was formed in 1954 with a wide remit to advance a whole range of nuclear technologies. In 1965, UKAEA was empowered by the Science and Technology Act to undertake research on non-nuclear topics. The result has been a successful business. At present, the forecast turnover for the whole of UKAEA in 1994–95 is £370 million. AEA Technology's contribution is about £250 million and its profits in 1994 were £10 million. AEA Technology services to private sector industries increased by 37 per cent. to £92 million, compared with £67 million in 1993–94. The Minister referred to the contracts that AEA Technology has recently won to supply BT, and the winning of £6 million worth of offshore services.
If AEA Technology is so successful, why on earth have the Government introduced a Bill that will set in train the dismantling of a successful British and international business? Indeed, the business is expanding, with offices in America, the Netherlands and Belgium. It is established in eastern Europe, providing assistance in decommissioning and cleaning up nuclear power stations. Its expertise is recognised and purchased worldwide. AEA Technology has a highly skilled work force. Recent research at Oxford, commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council, emphasised the importance of retaining key scientific and engineering staff as a contribution to a composite scientific effort. Why, if it is so successful, smash it up and sell it off in bits? The Bill is preparing the way for that to happen.
Spin-off technologies for industry outside the nuclear arena have been developed within AEA Technology directly as a result of that scientific interaction across a wide range of engineering and scientific disciplines. That has led to the transfer of non-destructive testing skills to the oil, gas and aerospace industries, to the application of fluid dynamics modelling to the oil and gas sectors and to the setting up of the heat transfer and fluid flow service; an international research development club with some 250 members worldwide and an annual turnover of £3 million.
AEA Technology has set up the National Centre for Tribology, which handles £3 million worth annually of industrial problem-solving in areas concerned with


friction, lubrication and wear. In addition, clean-up technologies have been developed to world-class levels of expertise.
The expertise of AEA Technology is precisely what the Office of Science and Technology energy foresight report recommended should be supported and enhanced. That report—the Government's scientific inquiry—was published in the past few weeks. Yet the Bill could lead to an irrevocable loss of scientific and engineering expertise, which the UK ought to be maintaining and enhancing, not dismantling.
Despite the debate on Second Reading and the questions that we asked during the weeks in which the Committee sat, it is fair to say that a whole range of issues are still outstanding. For example, questions on managing the safe decommissioning of nuclear liabilities and the custody and maintenance of radiation dose records have not been answered. The nuclear installations inspectorate recently expressed concern about the safety implications of fragmentation. The inspectorate warned that it would want assurances that Scottish Nuclear Ltd. would have access—timely indeed—to the wider body of technical information residing with Nuclear Electric and the Atomic Energy Authority. Yet with the break-up of UKAEA and the dispersal of its nuclear expertise, how on earth can the Government assure us on those questions?
We have also asked questions about medical supervision of employees in subsidiary companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said on Report, the whole question about national interest relating to the work of AEA Technology, if parts are sold abroad, is still outstanding. Our questions were not satisfactorily answered when we moved amendments on Report. Already we have heard that the facilities service division is moving abroad because American companies have bought it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked again about pension rights of employees whose departments are to be sold off or transferred. Those rights have not been guaranteed. Our amendments for equal pension rights for employees were voted against. All that we have been given are vague assurances. Those caught up in transfer have no legislative cover whatever under the Bill. Their rights ought to have been included in a Bill of this nature—they are not. It is disappointing perhaps, but not surprising that the Government regularly vote against all our reasonable amendments. They are perhaps just making a crude attempt to protect the new power to be given to the Secretary of State to be able to privatise industry.
All AEA Technology's achievements have been built on maintaining an integrated business. AEA acknowledges that its commercial success derives from the capability to consider process, plant and environmental matters in relation to each other. That has been its dynamic and the engine behind the success of the whole enterprise.
As privatisation erects artificial barriers between commercial and non-commercial activities, key synergies will be jeopardised and lost. AEA Technology will work best if it remains intact. As a smaller dismantled organisation, it will lose precisely what is considered its major trading asset—the synergy of its component parts.
Breaking up AEA Technology by privatising it will not allow its combined skills, expertise and knowledge to be directed to exploring the best and safest methods of

decommissioning nuclear power stations. As usual, the Government's priority is to get the cheapest, quickest short-term deal. In this case, that will prejudice a whole area of valuable United Kingdom scientific research.
We should maintain an integrated research facility rather than atomising it, especially when the Government have thrown the whole future of the nuclear energy industry up in the air. Parliament should decide the precise form of the sale. That is why we must oppose the Bill. The Bill leaves far too much unsaid; it is a "Leave it to me," or rather, a "Leave it to the Secretary of State" Bill, which will simply create more uncertainty and insecurity for everyone involved. It is a dismantling Bill that does not deserve a Third Reading. Hon. Members should vote against it.

Mr. Miller: On Third Reading I shall not re-run the pensions argument; I simply tell the Minister that whatever skills he may have—I realise that he must have some, as he has found himself on the Government Front Bench—they are not those of a pensions actuary. I urge him to revisit some of the arguments advanced during the debate, because it is clear that he has failed to recognise that the building of a pensions scheme is about how to protect the best interests of individuals within a collective arrangement. The suggested scheme fails to do that.
I asked the Minister earlier what the core business of the enterprise was. He failed to understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has just listed some of the extraordinarily diverse scientific skills that exist in the enterprise, and the dispersal of those elements into a fragmented group of companies will work to the disadvantage of British science.
It is crucial that if it is to be sold off at all the science base should be dealt with as one entity. I can do no more than urge the Government again to consider the greater good of British science, and to acknowledge the fact that the operation can continue to deliver the enormous contribution that it has made over the years to an extremely diverse group of scientific disciplines only if it is kept together.
I shall not stray into the subject of the nuclear review, but I am deeply concerned about our failure during the proceedings on the Bill to get answers from the Government about the relationship between the parts of the Atomic Energy Authority that overlap with the Berkeley technology centre, which is part of Nuclear Electric. Because of the uncertainty about the Government's intentions—one day the railways are top of their list, the next day it is the nuclear industry—it is difficult to assess where AEA will fit in and what the interplay with Berkeley will be in the future structure of the company. Again, the Government would be wise at least to defer any action until the outcome of the nuclear review is known and has been debated in this place.
The final question is: what benefit will there be for the taxpayer? We do not yet know. There is no obvious financial gain, although I suppose that there is a long-term gain for the public sector borrowing requirement in the disposal of the long-term pension liabilities. However, we do not even know how much will be gained there. There is at least a possibility that the Government's overall financial gain will be extremely small. We have not yet


been told how much money is likely to be transferred for the contingent liabilities of the pension fund, and we could find ourselves making no money at all from the sale.
The taxpayer's interests have not been taken into account, nor have those of British science, and the interests of the employees have certainly not been taken into account. Yet the Government say that it is perfectly okay to give the Secretary of State all the responsibility without his having to come back to the House with any detailed measures stemming from the Bill. We have a most unsatisfactory measure before us and I cannot do other than concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West in opposing it.

Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked what benefit there would be for the nation. The answer is that the Government do not know, for they have made no assessment—no benefit, no cost, no analysis. They have simply brought here a Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, is a loosely worded piece of paper designed to do nothing more than to dismantle a company which has served Britain well.
That company was formed under an earlier and wiser Conservative Administration, and it is now being dismantled by a completely foolish Administration. There is a story about virgins and lamps, and it applies to the present Government compared with the earlier Government who had the wisdom and foresight to understand the importance of the nuclear industry, how it needed to be regulated and how it would serve the needs of this country for many years. Now all that is to be lost.
To understand the way in which the Government have brought the Bill to the House, we need look no further than the politics of the past 15 years. The measure is a simple crude privatisation of an industry for which they have no further use or purpose, for they are not the slightest bit interested in the future of British technology or science. They believe implicitly that the market will sort it all out.
That is crazy and inappropriate, and the loose structure of the Bill is positively dangerous. There may be a case for all-encompassing clauses in certain circumstances, when what we are dealing with is certain and can be seen and understood, but it is in the nature of scientific endeavour that one cannot call the shots for the future. Yet we are being asked to give the Secretary of State all the power to determine what form the future ownership of the company will take, and how it might be transferred, with securities and shares, in the future.
The Bill before. us is not one that we can gladly embrace, and it should be voted down.
Let us look at some previous privatisations and draw a comparison with what the Government are doing in this instance. Following almost every privatisation, we have seen boardroom share options blossoming and people ripping off public funds like there was no tomorrow. Those involved have ensured that their back pockets are filled, and it will be no different following this privatisation.
The Minister has said that he will ensure that there is the full and proper participation of the employees. I shall believe that when it happens. The Government's purpose is simple. They know that the value of the company is low, at around £200 million. If this privatisation follows the pattern of others, the company will be massively undervalued and in a short time will be trading at a much higher price.
That is the history of all of the privatisations, and the history of the Government's uncaring and silly attitude towards our national assets. In the Government's opinion, it is always better for a company to be in the private sector rather than the public sector, but this is unquestionably an exception that we ought to be looking at much more carefully than we are.
Let us consider the matter of ownership, and how it could have been better structured if more thought had been given to the company. The Government ought to have thought as Ernest Bader did at Scott Bader in the 1950s. He determined that the company that he owned would be given to the workers in trust. In so doing, he ensured that the company would continue to grow and succeed and that it would remain in the ownership of the people in that company. He believed implicitly that labour should employ capital, not the other way round.
Here is another opportunity in which the real value of a company is the intellectual capital on which it has been built. Here was a golden opportunity for the Government to privatise, if they must, but to do so in such a way that the interests of Britain were served for as long as we could see into the future. The Government claim that companies cannot grow in the public sector because of Treasury rules, but they could change those rules. The Post Office has shown that the Government can help provide for a successful business by dealing in a different way with such matters. The Government need not be hamstrung by Treasury rules, which they can change. It is within the gift of the Government so to do. But they have done as they always do and disposed of the company.
In the area of scientific endeavour and monitoring, we can be sure that the Government will say that it is nothing to do with them if anything goes wrong. They will say that it is a private company, and it is not their responsibility. The Government take their hand off everything that they ought to have their hand upon.

Mr. Page: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make reference to the fact that the nationalised companies which are now in the private sector were dipping their hands into the taxpayer's pockets to the tune of £50 million a week before privatisation. They are now contributing £50 million a week to the Exchequer.

Mr. Purchase: What an intervention to make at this stage of the debate. I tell you, the Government make no assessment whatever of the benefit of important companies to the British economy. All that they can see is the balance sheets and the share options. They never see the benefit of having companies within the public sector, providing vital services to industry to enable it to expand and improve the economy. It is always a matter of how to get a penny today and never mind what happens tomorrow. That is the truth. That is the Government's philosophy; it never changes and it never will.
On this occasion, we are dealing with a very dangerous subject—the proper supervision and monitoring of the development of nuclear technology in this country. I tell


you, when it goes wrong—I am sorry to say that it almost inevitably will—the Government wil be the first to say, "Don't blame us; it has nothing to do with us—it is for the private sector to determine how best to deal with these matters." That is not the way any Government should deal with these matters. I tell you—

Mr. Barry Porter: Tell us.

Mr. Purchase: I can tell the hon. Gentleman a great deal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but he keeps blaming me. This has nothing to do with me at all.

Mr. Purchase: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I unreservedly apologise. I am blaming the Government, of course, and not your good self.
The Government have presented us with an untenable measure and a Bill so loosely worded and structured that it can mean anything to anybody. The Bill in no way preserves the integrity of ownership that is necessary for the proper development, supervision and monitoring of the nuclear industry. It in no way attempts to make a proper financial appraisal or a cost-benefit analysis of what is good for this country and what is not.
The Government have made no effort to do that because the Bill has been brought to this House for the simple reason that they failed to convince the House and the country that the Post Office ought to be privatised. This Bill is a substitute. It is a failure, and we should vote against it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 246.

Division No. 143]
[6.35 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brandreth, Gyles


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Sir Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Amess, David
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ancram, Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Bates, Michael
Clappison, James


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Bendall, Vivian
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coe, Sebastian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Congdon, David


Booth, Hartley
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bowis, John
Couchman, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Cran, James





Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
LiIley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishbum, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (String)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mates, Michael


Gorst, Sir John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Page, Richard


Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim






Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Richards, Rod
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thumham, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Tom
Trend, Michael


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Bit (N Tayside)


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Ray


Spink, Dr Robert
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Stephen, Michael
Wolfson,Mark


Stem, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan
Yeo,Tim


Streeter, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sumberg, David



Sweeney, Walter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sykes, John
Mr. Simon Burns and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. David Willetts.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Adams, Mis Irene
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ainger, Nick
Caravan, Dennis


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Church, Judith


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clapnam, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clarke, Eric (Midothian)


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Austin-Walker, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cox, Tom


Beggs, Roy
Cummings, John


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Berry, Roger
Davidson, Ian


Betts, Clive
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Donohoe, BrianH


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Callaghan, Jim
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Enright, Derek





Etherington, Bill
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Fatcnett, Derek
Maddock, Diana


Fisher, Mark
Mahon, Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mandelson, Peter


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael J (Springbum)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galbraith, Sam
Meacher, Michael


Galloway, George
Meale, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Michael, Alun


Garrett, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Miller, Andrew


Godsitf, Roger
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Ftt Hon John (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hall, Mike
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hardy, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Olner, Bill


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Heppell, John
Patehett, Terry


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pearson, Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hoey, Kate
Pickthall, Colin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)
Pike, Peter L


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Gordon (Pende)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Randall, Stuart


Hutton,John
Raynsford, Nick


Illsley, Eric
Redmond, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rendel, David


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Janner, Greville
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rooney, Terry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ruddock, Joan


Khabra, Piara S
Salmond, Alex


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Lestor, Joan (Ecdes)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Simpson, Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCartney, Ian
Snape, Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McKelvey, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfeimline W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLeish, Henry
Steinberg, Gerry


Maclennan, Robert
Stevenson, George


McMaster, Gordon
Stott, Roger






Strang, Dr. Gavin
Welsh, Andrew


Straw, Jack
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wise, Audrey


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Worthington, Tony


Timms, Stephen
Wray, Jimmy


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Dr Tony


Touhig, Don
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Watson, Mike
Mr. Stephen Byers.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

CIVIL AVIATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.— [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 13th December 1994, relating to the accession of new members to the European Union; and welcomes the fact that agreement was reached on these adjustments enabling Austria, Finland and Sweden to accede to the European Union on 1st January 1995.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Question agreed to.

Mrs. Donna Tutton

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Allan Rogers: It is with some reluctance that I bring this case to the attention of the House this evening. I do so only as a result of my complete inability to establish the facts in this case or, having established what facts I could, to obtain some action on the matter.
The best way for me to place the case in context is to read a letter that was sent to me by my constituent, Mrs. Donna Tutton, which I received on 1 November 1994. I shall paraphrase parts of it, but I read it substantially as it is, for accuracy.
Mrs. Tutton writes:
On the 29th April 1990 I was attacked in my own Home by my ex-husband, his father and his brother-in-law, resulting in me having an operation at the Heath
hospital in
Cardiff. They had to shave my head, saw my skull open to remove blood clots
and
I had 36 staples in my skull. If they hadn't operated I would have been dead by morning.
I had repeated visits to the hospital by them to
tell her that she and her baby son, who was 10 months old, would be killed and that the son would be sent to a country overseas and would be bled to death to cleanse his soul.
I ended up having a nervous breakdown. The doctor was very good and thanks to her help I managed to report this to the police and they were arrested.
I was told they were let off as I was the only witness to the attack. I was told by them that they could kill me as I didn't count and no-one would believe me anyway, they knew someone in the
Crown Prosecution Service.
My solicitor wrote to the CPS. He was very shocked that they weren't being taken to court … the only reply we got was the decision was theirs and they didn't wish to discuss it …
Since all this happened I have
had to move my home
four times and my son has needed to move school three times. They've always found me. I have now re-married a boy from Porth"—
the village where I live in the Rhondda—
and am now living
in the Rhondda valleys, but
they've found me again and we're going to have to sell up.
The letter describes some other matters, but Mrs. Tutton finishes as follows:
Why are myself and my son being punished? We've never hurt anyone in our lives yet we're on the run.
It seems I don't count as I am just a silly girl. It's not what you do, it seems, it's who you know.
They could kill me and probably get away with it
and no one would say anything.
They'll just say it was a domestic.
Please, please could I come to talk with you?


I was so distressed by the contents of that letter that I immediately wrote, on 1 November 1994, to the Crown Prosecution Service, although first I wrote to the police, asking them if they would immediately look after my constituent. I wrote:
I would be grateful if you could do something so that my constituent can be protected from this harassment"—
because Mrs. Tutton told me that at the same time her assailants were coming to her home and standing outside it, because they wanted to take the son back to be brought up in their religion—
especially in view of the previous vicious assault by these men, a Mr. Zahad Amin, a Mr. Ray Bashk and a Mr. Sherez Khan.
Finally, on 1 February 1995, I received a letter from the chief constable, saying:
As you know, Mrs. Tutton's former husband, Mr. Zahad Amin, lives in the Cardiff area and she has seen him a number of times in the general area of her home and the local school and is understandably apprehensive about his motives. There is little that the police can do, but an officer has spoken to Mr. Amin and warned him about his future conduct. It may be in Mrs. Tutton's interest to seek legal advice about the possibility of taking out an injunction against her former husband, although I should mention here that the last sighting of Mr. Amin
in the Ynyshir area was October 1994, which was when she wrote to me in such a distressed condition.
At the same time, I wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service, because I could not understand why that case had not proceeded. Then a farce started that would be funny if the context were not so tragic. I could not believe it. It was almost comic. When I wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions—excuse me handling some documents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to get it right for the record—and asked her whether she would
reconsider prosecuting and inform me why you did not proceed in the first instance
I received a letter in reply, after some time and a couple of reminders, saying:
Mrs. Tutton, in April 1990, reported to the police that she had been assaulted by her ex-husband and his father. The police prepared a file and submitted it to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice, but on their test of what they would consider a reasonable prospect of conviction"—
I shall return to that issue later—
they decided not to proceed.
The file did not pass the evidential test and it was sent back to the police. However, it was subsequently lost. The excuse offered then was: "We cannot give you any reasons for not prosecuting the case because we have lost the file; it is not available." The Director of Public Prosecutions said:
Enquiries have been made with the police to see whether this file is still in existence. Regrettably, the police have not retained a copy of the papers. Without these papers, it would obviously be impossible for me to comment on the Crown Prosecution Service's decision, or to explain the reasons for taking no further action in this case.
I realise that my reply will be a disappointment to Mrs. Tutton".
That fairly gratuitous remark at the end of the letter did not please me.
I wrote back immediately and said:
I must confess that I'm amazed and appalled at your reply which is summed up in your penultimate paragraph. You really must do better than this—I am not going to have my constituent's complaint brushed aside in this cavalier and high-handed way.
My constituent was savagely beaten, hospitalized with a fractured skull and yet you have taken no action. What on earth do you require as evidence? If Mrs. Tutton had been murdered"—
if her attackers had proceeded a little further and kicked her a little more she would have died—
there would have been no witness so according to your criteria no-one would have been prosecuted.
I am enclosing some further documents which might stimulate a more intelligent response".
After a reasonable period—not immediately—I received another letter from the Crown Prosecution Service. I sent medical evidence in relation to Mrs. Tutton's case, together with her initial police statement. I received a letter from the CPS which stated:
As I explained in my letter of 24 November 1994, papers relating to this matter have not been retained by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service".
The letter goes on to say that there was lack of corroborative evidence as there was only one witness.
It is a pathetic and a sinister reply, because only the skill of the surgeon saved Mrs. Tutton. If she had died, there would have been no witnesses and, according to the CPS criteria, no prosecution could have taken place.
I would like the Solicitor-General to examine that question. If the Crown Prosecution Service intends to apply those criteria in all cases, it would mean that there would never be a prosecution in a rape case. Most rapes are not committed in public; there are usually only two witnesses—the rapist and the victim of the rape. According to the criteria that the CPS has evolved in Mrs. Tutton's case, if there is only one witness there can be no corroborative evidence. Does that mean that justice is to be dispensed in this country only when there is a gaggle of witnesses? Will not forensic, circumstantial and other corroborative evidence be accumulated in order to prosecute cases?
The letter raises another equally appalling issue—I am sure that you will find it incredible, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said earlier, I submitted copies of Mrs. Tutton's original police statement and medical evidence to the CPS. The CPS letter states:
Mrs. Tutton provides documents"—
it was I who provided them—
confirming that she suffered injuries. However, these documents rely a great deal on what Mrs. Tutton told the medical practitioners and, in themselves, do not take matters any further".
That is an absolutely incredible and contemptuous statement, which is highly insulting to the neurosurgeon who wrote the medical report.
The neurosurgeon's letter states:
Skull X-rays demonstrated a right parietal skull fracture and a CT scan demonstrated a right sided, extradural haematoma, ie a blood clot between the inner surface of the skull and the tough membrane (dura) which surrounds the brain. There was bruising around her left eye and right arm".
There is further evidence that Mrs. Tutton still suffers not only as a result of the nervous breakdown but also from epileptic fits.
The Crown Prosecution Service said that the documents that I submitted relied on what Mrs. Tutton had told the medical practitioners. Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you


imagine Mrs. Tutton walking into the hospital and saying, "Hiya fellas, I've got a right parietal skull fracture, a blood clot and bruising all over me. I've been battered against the wall, rammed against the door and kicked on the floor."? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the documents rely on what Mrs. Tutton told the medical practitioners. Would a neurosurgeon write a report based on such evidence? The facts are there for all to see.
I have tried to pursue the case through every avenue. The Home Secretary said, "It has nothing to do with me." When I went to the ombudsman on the basis that the case had been administered badly, he said, "It has nothing to do with me; I can't deal with matters of justice." My hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General suggested that the ombudsman for legal services might be able to help. However, he could not provide assistance, because he can deal only with complaints against solicitors, barristers and licensed conveyors. How do we deal with complaints against the Director of Public Prosecutions and her Department?
I did not want to bring the matter before the House; I did not want to expose the problems in an Adjournment debate. I have copies of the copious letters that I have sent to all sorts of Government Departments in an attempt to receive an answer and to resolve the matter through the normal channels. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the chief constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the ombudsman, but I came up against a brick wall.
What is the present position? I do not wish to be critical of the Solicitor-General. I genuinely want to elicit solutions to the problems that I have raised—if not for Mrs. Tutton's sake, for the benefit of others in the future. Will the Solicitor-General establish an inquiry into the matter? Will he promise this evening that he will examine the issue and give me an answer? Is there a precedent for the course of action to be taken when files are lost? I am sure that files must have been lost before—there are thousands of files circulating in the CPS and in police departments. Surely we can look to some form of precedent in this matter.
This raises a fundamental issue: what is the Crown Prosecution Service about? I accept that there must be some filtering of evidence before cases come to court. It used to be done primarily by chief superintendents who decided whether to process matters, probably in consultation with others, but it now appears that the Crown Prosecution Service is the judge and jury. A relatively young solicitor in the Crown Prosecution Service can take the evidence and decide that it will not go through, and that is that.
I thought that the basis of our law was that evidence could be presented to a court, and examined by a judge who would direct and consult a jury, who would then hand down a verdict. I know that all cases cannot go to court. They would clog up the whole system, but I would rather a system that is clogged than for such cases not to go before a court and be tested.
I feel that there is insufficient evidence to convince people. My argument against not going to court is that any woman in this country is vulnerable within her own home. It means that anyone can get away with viciously attacking his wife or children. There are very sinister overtones for such vulnerable people as old-age pensioners, a wife in the family home and people out on the streets who are the victims of crimes committed in

dark and secret places. If there are no other witnesses and if one witness who is the victim is not enough, our society has taken a step backwards.
If the answer is that we cannot clog up the legal system by prosecuting any of those cases, I would prefer a clogged-up system. However, if the money is not available because the Government are not making resources available for the system of justice to be prosecuted properly, the Solicitor-General must say so. If the decisions are based on financial grounds, I believe that it is very sad.
I take no pleasure at all in coming here tonight and exposing one of my constituents to the glare of publicity. I was amazed at the response of the media to tonight's Adjournment debate. They came to me almost in droves today because they see some of the elements I have outlined. It gives me no pleasure to be here, but if the Solicitor-General can give answers, I shall be extremely grateful.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on obtaining the debate, which raises an important subject, not only for his constituent, but for the public at large. Although I have listened with sympathy and interest to the points that he has raised, I am afraid that I cannot adopt the epithets which he has used to describe the events surrounding Donna Tutton's case. It is not accepted that she has given an accurate account of the reasons why proceedings were not instituted, still less that anyone acted in a cavalier or high-handed manner; nor is there anything prophetic or sinister in how the case was handled. There are 1.4 million cases handled annually by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the case was handled in just the same way as all the others.
The debate gives me the opportunity first, to explain how the Crown Prosecution Service approaches the decision to prosecute—an issue which is frequently misunderstood and tends to be surrounded in myth and misconception. Secondly, I shall set out how that general approach was applied by professional lawyers to the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Rogers: The Solicitor-General said that there were millions of cases. Are the files lost in all 1.4 million cases?

The Solicitor-General: No files were lost in this case, and if the hon. Gentleman will bide his time, I shall explain to him what happened.
The decision to prosecute an individual is a very serious step. Fair and effective prosecution is essential to the maintenance of law and order. No doubt all hon. Members will agree with that. In every case, the prosecution has serious implications for everybody involved—on one hand the victim, and on the other hand the witnesses.
Each case is normally started by the police. The first stage involves the police charging a suspect. The file is then sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, which applies the tests which are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. About 50,000 copies of that were published a short time ago, in a plain English version and a plain Welsh version. They were circulated to other prosecuting authorities within the Crown Prosecution Service, to the police and to other law enforcement authorities.
The first stage that the Crown Prosecution Service applies is what is called the evidential test. All cases must pass that to be considered as qualifying for prosecution. No matter how important or serious a case is, it must pass that evidential test before it can go any further. For a case to pass the test, the Crown prosecutor must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect—not a reasonable prospect, as the hon. Gentleman said—of conviction against each defendant on each charge.
Those tests are applied by trained barristers and solicitors, upholding their professional standards. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prosecution case.
A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means, as it says in the code, that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. That is the test that applies, and on reflection the hon. Gentleman may agree that it is a fair test.
To put a rhetorical question, what is the point of conducting litigation involving the liberty of the subject on a "wait and see" basis, by saying, "Let us wait and see if the magistrates find there is a case to answer," or, "Let us wait and see if the judge thinks there is a case to answer."? That surely would be unfair to the suspect, the victims and the public.
It is quite wrong to regard the function carried out by Crown Prosecution Service lawyers as acting as judge and jury. That is not their function. As I have said, their function is to ascertain whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
In no case is that decision based on financial considerations. The lawyer who takes the decision has no idea what the state of the branch budget is. Whether it has spent a little or a lot is of no concern to the lawyer taking the decision. It cannot be stated too often that financial considerations do not enter into the decision.
The first stage is reached when the police charge the suspect in the custody suite at the police station. If the hon. Gentleman has not been to his local police station to see that procedure, I invite him to do so, because it illustrates the pressures to which the police are subject—noise, interference, drunks, hysterical witnesses and so on. Against that background, the custody officer must make a decision, on the evidence known to him, as to the appropriate charge.

Mr. Rogers: A member of my family is a policeman, so of course I have visited the local nick on more than one occasion. I accept that policemen are subject to stress. Perhaps the Solicitor-General ought to know that I was a policeman while doing my Army service.

The Solicitor-General: In that case, my point is already made—but many people do not realise it, and the hon. Gentleman cannot blame me for taking advantage of the occasion to give wider publicity to that which the hon. Gentleman knows from personal experience.
The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is often necessary later to amend or add to the charge, or even on occasions to withdraw proceedings, for a number of

reasons. The principal reason is that the police are not always in possession of the full facts when they initially charge the defendant.
The second stage is when the file arrives with the Crown Prosecution Service—the first time that the mind of the trained lawyer is brought to bear on the case. The police are not lawyers.
The hon. Gentleman took us back to the days when the local superintendent decided whether a case should be brought. If I may trade experience for experience, in my early days at the Bar, many were the occasions in Norfolk and Suffolk that I entered the court at quarter sessions or assizes briefed by just such police officers. I am as familiar with that procedure as the hon. Gentleman. As a result of the Philips royal commission, the House decided that that procedure was no longer satisfactory.
In the light of experience, and of a number of miscarriages of justice such as the Confait case, it was thought necessary to divide the investigative process and the prosecutorial process—to continue to vest the investigative process in the police, but to vest the prosecutorial process in a new body, the Crown Prosecution Service.
As I go around the country asking police officers of all ranks whether they want to return to the days when they fulfilled the prosecutorial function as well as the investigative one, precious few of them want to turn the clock back. Their view almost to a man and woman is: "Our job as police officers is to police, to prevent and detect crime, and to investigate. The job of prosecuting is properly that of the CPS."
By the time that the mind of the trained CPS lawyer is brought to bear on the case, the investigation will be either complete or well advanced. The charges preferred by the police may need to be amended, substituted, or in rare cases withdrawn. When it is decided to withdraw a prosecution by discontinuance, the invariable practice where possible—and it is in virtually all cases—is to consult the police and to ask for their views, then discontinue in the light of any additional submissions or evidence that the police may offer.
At that second stage, the evidence is closely examined by the CPS lawyer. Sometimes, it is suggested by uninformed persons that there is reluctance on the part of the CPS to prosecute. Why should there be? I do not know the supposed motivation, but that suggestion is absolute nonsense.
If the hon. Gentleman has not visited his local CPS branch, I invite him to do so. He will see how the lawyers deal with their work, and learn their attitudes. He will discover whether they are frightened of bringing prosecutions, as some people suggest, or whether—as is the fact—they apply their trained, professional and impartial judgment to the facts of the case before them.

Mr. Rogers: The Solicitor-General completely misunderstands. In spending his time trying to defend the indefensible, he does not grasp the nettle. The problem is not whether the CPS took the decision that it did rightly or wrongly. When I asked for its reasons, the CPS could not find the files. Mrs. Mills stated:
If the original file of evidence had still been available, I would be able to give a detailed reply. However, I regret that without access to the original file of evidence supplied in 1990, I am unable to comment on the circumstances which lay behind the decision".


I am not necessarily questioning the CPS decision per se, although I have expressed my views. The Solicitor-General should have listened to the end of my speech, when I asked whether he could do something now.

The Solicitor-General: I listened to the beginning, middle and end of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I hope to answer all aspects of his questions before I finish.
I described the general process that is followed in all cases, so that it might be made plain and to draw any suggestions in various quarters that some sinister process is undergone by CPS lawyers, which is not so. They approach cases in the way that I have described. Their sole purpose is to ensure that the right defendants are brought before the courts, prosecuted fairly and punished on the basis of charges that accurately reflect the seriousness of the offending, and which enable the court to impose adequate punishment.
That is the generality. I come to the particular case that concerns the hon. Gentleman. I begin by briefly explaining the facts as they are now known. There is no dispute that, on 29 April 1990, Donna Tutton suffered a serious head injury. On 4 May, when admitted to East Glamorgan general hospital, she was found to be suffering from a fractured skull, with a blood clot immediately underneath the skull. She needed immediate surgery, and there is clear and incontrovertible evidence from medical men of standing that that was her condition.
Shortly afterwards, Donna Tutton made a complaint to the police, and provided them with a witness statement containing her account of the events of 29 April, in which she said that she had been attacked by a named man. However, shortly after making that initial statement, Mrs. Tutton made a further statement withdrawing her complaint. She told police that she no longer wanted to support any criminal proceedings. Accordingly, at that stage no proceedings were instituted.
There matters rested until October 1991. The complaint made in May 1990 was withdrawn. Nothing more happened for more than a year, until October 1991. At that time, the lady found herself prosecuted for a serious assault. She went back to the police and told them that she wished to pursue the case in respect of which she had made the complaint 18 months before. On 18 October 1991, some 18 months after being assaulted, she made a further witness statement, in which she gave an account of events on 29 April 1990 and named the person who she said was responsible for attacking her and causing her serious injuries.
The police arrested that person and interviewed him. He flatly denied being at the house at the time, and maintained on a number of occasions that he was completely innocent of the attack on Donna Tutton. He was nevertheless charged by the police and bailed to attend a magistrates court on 20 January 1992. On that day, the case was adjourned until 20 February for a committal to take place so that the proceedings might be transferred to the Crown court.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

The Solicitor-General: I shall certainly give way, but I am just coming to what I see as the guts of the case: in the light of the foregoing, why did the case not proceed? I shall explain.
The evidence that the lawyer at the CPS had to consider at this stage had to be looked at against the criteria that I have outlined. Was there a realistic prospect of conviction; if so, was a prosecution in the public interest? As it was a serious matter, it boiled down to just the first question—was there a realistic prospect of conviction? There was no comedy or farce. This was a serious professional exercise, to be carried out by a professional person.
The main issue that the lawyer had to determine concerned whether there was a realistic prospect of convicting a named person of the admitted assault. There was plenty of evidence of the assault; the real issue was whether the named man could be proved to be the attacker.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the evidence for the identity of the attacker was only Donna Tutton herself. That in itself is not fatal. The courts are concerned with the quality of evidence, not with the numbers of witnesses. All of us at the Bar have from time to time been involved in cases where the word of one witness has prevailed against that of many, because courts have determined, on all the evidence including the witness's demeanour, that he or she was telling the truth. The fact remained that Donna Tutton was the only witness, however.
Next, the lawyer had to take into account the fact that she made a complaint shortly after the original assault, which she then withdrew. Thirdly, about 18 months had passed since the original complaint, during which time she had been content for no proceedings to be initiated. Fourthly—and most importantly—the timing of her second complaint and any motive that she might have had that might have affected her credibility had to be considered—in particular, the possibility that she was making the complaint as a counter-allegation in response to an allegation against her of committing a serious crime. As a matter of common sense, that is a potent element undermining someone's credibility, which any rational person would have to take into account.
Weighing all these four matters in the balance, the Crown prosecutor concluded that the evidence did not afford a realistic prospect of conviction. In the light of that, the case could not proceed. But consistent with the proper procedure, the police were consulted and asked whether they wished to add anything or argue to the contrary. They agreed with the decision; accordingly, a notice of discontinuance was issued, and the proceedings were terminated.
There is absolutely no truth in the allegation that the case was not dealt with properly because any file was lost by the CPS. Any files that were lost were lost well after the event, as I shall go on to explain.

Mr. Rogers: I find the Solicitor-General's response appalling. He has given four reasons why he says the case did not proceed. I accept those reasons, but when I wrote to ask Mrs. Mills, the Director of Public Prosecutions, for reasons, she replied that she could not comment on the circumstances that lay behind the decision, because the file was not available. Is it not strange that the information has suddenly surfaced now? Certainly no one knew about it until tonight.

The Solicitor-General: I am not a conjuror: I am not going to pull a rabbit out of a hat. But I am going to be able to explain, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, how it is that, unlike the DPP, I can now explain the reasons. The hon. Gentleman can take credit; his


persistence led to the coming to light of some further material. He has performed a signal service for his constituent by pursuing the matter.
The decision having been taken to terminate the case, matters remained there—until the hon. Gentleman wrote to the DPP on 1 November last year, enclosing his constituent's correspondence complaining about the decision. By then it was almost three years since the proceedings had been discontinued, and in order to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, it was necessary to try to retrieve the file.
This is where the problem began. A member of staff spoke to Donna Tutton to find out more details of the case. As a result, the local office made a search of its records. The file was not there, for good reasons that will shortly become apparent. Because of the time that had elapsed since the proceedings were discontinued, in accordance with ordinary procedures for destroying files, the file had been destroyed.
The CPS wrote to the police asking whether they still had a file. At that stage, no information was received from the police, and despite a further request from the hon. Gentleman, no file could then be found—in the hands of the police or of the CPS. It was not until last week that the police, not the CPS, were able to locate in their archives a copy of part of the file. It was not complete, but it threw light on the reasons why the Crown Prosecution Service had originally discontinued the case.

Mr. Rogers: I am glad that the Solicitor-General is smiling; he must have a better sense of humour than I have. Was the copy found before or after I put in the request for this Adjournment debate?

The Solicitor-General: It was found only last week; I imagine that it was found after the hon. Gentleman's request. I am smiling because I have, I hope, an appreciation of a sense of theatre. This is the answer to the long search that the hon. Gentleman has made for the truth.
As I said, the copy is not complete, but it contains sufficient information for me to be able to provide now such detail as I have about the case and to reassure the hon. Gentleman that all relevant matters were properly taken into account by the Crown prosecutor when the decision was taken to discontinue the proceedings in February 1992.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the original file in the hands of the CPS cannot be found, and that, necessarily, all possible information about the case is not available. I shall explain the procedures for retaining and destroying files, so that I can satisfy him that there has been no skulduggery in that area.
The CPS receives approximately 2 million files a year from the police. 'To store them indefinitely would obviously be a huge and unnecessary burden on taxpayers' funds. The retention of files even for a shorter period has a significant cost, and the CPS fulfils its statutory obligations to retain documents placed with it under the Public Records Acts of 1958 and 1967. This means that the minimum retention period for cases tried in a magistrates court is 12 months, and that the minimum retention period for cases tried in the Crown court is three years.
CPS files are not, of course, an official record of court proceedings. Files are retained only for as long as the department considers that they are required for its own purpose, unless they have a wider administrative, precedent, historical or research interest.
This means that, although a few files may be retained for long periods, or even permanently if they are of historical interest, in which case they are kept in the Public Record Office, the majority of files relating to the large number of cases received by the CPS are destroyed after a relatively short time. The CPS must balance the likely usefulness of files against the burden on the taxpayer of retaining large quantities of files containing material of little or no significant public interest.
In a case such as this, where proceedings were discontinued in the magistrates court, the local arrangements for the storage and retention of files were such that the destruction date for files relating to cases tried in the magistrates court was two years and one month, unless there was some good reason for keeping them longer.
Therefore, the CPS file in relation to this case would have been destroyed in March 1994, some two years and one month after the proceedings were discontinued. If the hon. Gentleman's inquiries had been made during that time, the CPS would have had the file to hand, and the DPP would have been able to refer to it and give him a full reply along the lines that I have given him. For the reasons I have described, she was, most unfortunately, unable to do so.

Mr. Rogers: I must confess that there are some differences between the replies given by the DPP and the Solicitor-General. He says that, if I had raised the case in March 1994, the file would have been available. Unfortunately for the Solicitor-General and for Mrs. Mills, she wrote me a letter on 24 November 1994 saying that, at the end of a retention period of one year, the papers were not destroyed by the CPS, but returned to the police. They were returned within a year, yet the Solicitor-General says that they were available four and a half years later. What is the truth of the matter?

The Solicitor-General: The truth is that more than one copy is retained. The police have their version, and the CPS has its version. The destruction procedures I have outlined relate to the copy kept by the CPS.

Mr. Rogers: With all due respect to the Solicitor-General, Mrs. Mills says in the same letter that the file is not in existence. She says that she cannot comment because she does not have a file. The Solicitor-General is now saying that there were two files.

The Solicitor-General: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman what the position is. I thought that I had made it crystal clear.
To complete the story, the hon. Gentleman wrote to the DPP on 1 November and on 7 December last year, although the enclosures to the second letter were not sent until 31 January. She replied on 24 November and 9 February, explaining that, as far as could be established at that time, the case involving Donna Tutton had been the subject of an advice file from the police to the CPS. Advice had been given to the police, and at the end of the file retention period, the papers were returned to the police, who unfortunately had not retained a copy. It is only now that the police have located a copy of the file that the true picture is known.
The hon. Gentleman began by pleading for an inquiry to be held. Such an inquiry as is called for by the case has now been held. I have explained in full detail to the hon. Gentleman what has occurred. I assure him that the CPS dealt with this case properly and carefully. I have explained that it has proper systems in place for the retention and storage of files.
I know that Donna. Tutton unfortunately continues to suffer from her injuries. She recently received an award in her favour from the Criminal Injuries Compensation

Board. The only issue in front of that body was whether she had suffered injuries as a result of a criminal assault; there was no need to identify the attacker. There is therefore no inconsistency between an award of compensation from the board and the CPS declining to prosecute. I hope, however, that the award goes some way towards compensating Donna Tutton for her pain and suffering as a result of this unfortunate incident.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.